Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

164
JPjL PUBLICATION 79-29 Altern-ate Propellant Progr a"m Phase [ Final Report F. A. Anderson W. R.West N79-28345 (NASA-CR-158815) ALTERNATE PROPELI NT PROGRAf, PHASE 1 Final Report (Jet Propulsion Lab.). 161. p HC A8/ME Aol CSCL 21H 'Unclas G3/28 29388 Ju1i?,197 cr 'j Natioal'-aeronautics. and ", . Space- AAmfnistration- Jet .Prooulsioh iiaboatory dalif6mia Institute ol Technology Pasadena, Califernia

Transcript of Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

Page 1: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

JPjL PUBLICATION 79-29

Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase [Final Report

FA Anderson W RWest

N79-28345(NASA-CR-158815) ALTERNATE PROPELI NT

PROGRAf PHASE 1 Final Report (Jet Propulsion Lab) 161 p HC A8ME Aol

CSCL 21H Unclas G328 29388

Ju1i197 cr j

Natioal-aeronautics and

Space- AAmfnistration-

Jet Prooulsioh iiaboatory dalif6mia Institute ol TechnologyPasadena Califernia

1- TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD

1 Report No 2 Government Accession No 3 Recipients Catalog No JPL libiei 7-2

4 Title and Subtitle 5 Report Date ALTERNATE PROPELLANT PROGRAM July 1 19 PHASE I FINAL REPORT 6 Performing Organization

7 Author(s) 8 Performing Qrganization Re F A Anderson and W R West

9 Performing Organization Name and Address 10 Work Unit No JET -PROPULSIONLABORATORY California Institute of Technology 11 Contract or Grant No 4800 Oak Grove Drive NAS 7-100 Pasadena California 91103 13 Type of Report and Period C

12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address JPL Publication

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Washington DC 20546 14 Sponsoring Agency Code

15 Supplementary Notes

16 Abstract

This report documents the work done by the Caltech-Jet Propulsion Laboratory of NASJ for the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA on a Shuttle Alternate PropellantProgram0 The work was done as a Phase I follow-on effort to a previous Phase 0 feasibility study The program was designed to investigate three candidate propell systems for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) which would eliminate or greatly reduce the amount of H0l produced in the exhaust of the Shuttle SEM Ammonium nitrate was selected for consideration as the main oxidizer with ammonium pdrchlorate and nitramine cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine as secondary oxidiz The amount of ammonium perchlorate used was limited to an amount which would produc an exhaust containing no more than 3 H1

17 Key Words (Selected by Author(s)) 18 Distribution Statement

Propulsions and Fuels (General) Unclassified - Unlimited Rocket Propellants

19 Security Classif (of this report) 20 Security Classif (of this page) 21 No of Pabes 22 Price

Unclassified Unclassified 168 1

JPL PUBLICATION 79-29 -

Alternate PropellantProgram Phase I Final Report

FA Anderson W R West

July 1 1979

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of Technology Pasadena California

The research described in this publication was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology under NASA Contract No NAS7-100

-PREFACE

This final report describes the work done to develop candidate alternate propellants for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor

- This work was done by theSolid Propulsion and Environmental Systems Section Control and Energy Conversion Division of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville Alabama

iii

DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS

AD ammonium dichromate

AFRPL Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory

Ae exit area

Al aluminum

A1203 aluminum oxide

Afros Alrosperse

AN ammonium nitrate

AP ammonium perchlorate

BATES Ballistic Test and Evaluation System

C characteristic exhaust velocity

CU-0202 P copper chromite catalyst (trade name of Harshaw Chemical Co)

De exit diameter

DOA dioctyl adipate

DSC differential scanning calorimeter

Dt throat diameter

ESD electrostatic discharge

ETS Edwards Test Station

DTBH 25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone

eb elongation at break

em elongation at maximum stress

E expansion ratio

F thrust

F average thrust

FeF3 ferric fluoride

Fe203 iron oxide

FEM fluid energy mill

iv

HCI hydrogen chloride

HMX cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine

HTPB hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene-

IDP isodecyl pelargonate

IPDI isophorone diisocyanate

Isp0 specific impulse sea level optimum Pc 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) Isp ms measured specific impulse

it total impulse

KP potassium peroblorate

KN ratio of propellant burn area to throat area

kP kilopoise (1 kP = 100 N-sm2)

Mg magnesium

iam microns

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

n pressure exponent

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOS Naval Ordnance Station (Indian Head Md)

Pa ambient pressure

PHAN polybutadiene acrylic acid acrylonitrile terpolymer

Pe exit pressure

PC chamber pressure

PC average chamber pressure

PPG-1225 polypropylene glycol

Protech 2002 CSD proprietary metal-deactivating antioxidant (trade name)

r burning rate

hydroxy-terminated polyester

R-45M hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene

v

R-18

Sb tensile strength at break

SL opt sea level optimum

Sm maximum tensile strength

SRM solid rocket motor

ta action time

tb web burn time

tEWAT time at end of web action time

TMETN 111-trimethylolethane trinitrate

RAM-225 silicone oil in solvent (release agent)

UOP-36 N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine

UV ultraviolet

Nweight flow rate

W p Propellant weight

Zr Zirconium

p density

vi

ABSTRACT

This report documents the work done by the Caltech-Jet PropulsionLaboratory of NASA for the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA on a Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program The work was done as a Phase I follow-on effort to a previous Phase 0 feasibility study The program was designed to investigate three candidate propellant systems for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) which would eliminate or greatly reducethe amount of HC produced in the exhaust of the Shuttle SRM Ammonium nitrate was selected for consideration as the main oxidizer with ammonium perchlorate and the nitramine cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine (HMX) as secondary oxidizers The amount of ammonium perchlorate used was limited to an amount which would produce an exhaust containing no more than 3 HC1

Development work was carried out on three basic candidate propellantsystems (1) a mixed oxidizer of ammonium nitrate and ammonium perchlorate (2) a mixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate and HMX and (3) amixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate ammonium perchlorate and HMX All three systems contained 15 aluminum powder and had a total solids loading of 88 A urethane binder based on a hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene cured with a diisocyanate was selected as the binder system

The first and third propellant systems outlined above were developed to the point of successful scale-up and loading of 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes and successful test firing of 45-kg (10-1b) test motors and 32-kg(70-1b) BATES motors The second propellant system the ANHMX oxidizer system received only very limited development due to a out-back in both the funds and schedule time initially planned for this program All three propellants had satisfactory processing characteristics however at the 88 solids loading

The first and third propellant systems (the ANAP and the ANHMXAPoxidizer systems) were both also subjected to hazard testing and were demonstrated to conform to Class 2 hazard classification with HMX levels up to 17 wt in the HMX-containing propellant The second oxidizer combination system (the ANHMX) was not characterized as to hazards classification for the reasons mentioned earlier

The utilization of the low-Hl-producing alternate propellant was planned to be in ccmbinatidn with the current baseline PBAN propellantin a dual propellant design Therefore mutual compatibility between the two propellants was essential In order to lessen the severity of the burning rate requirement for the alternate propellant it was decided to decrease the burning rate specification for the PBAN baseline propellant to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) A modified baseline PBAN propellant formulation was therefore developed to conform to the lower burning rate specification It should be pointed out here that this modified baseline propellant system applies only to the dual propellantgrain design and does not relate in any way to the specifications of the present system being developed for the current Shuttle SRM The ballistic properties of the modified baseline PBAN propellant were demonstrated in several 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

vii

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION - 1-1

II SUMMARY- 2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPA1HTPB ------------------------- 2-2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXAlHTPB ------------------------ 2-2

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB --------------------- 2-2

D SYSTEM NO 4 MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE --------------- 2-3

III PHASE I PROGRAM -------------------------------------------- 3-1

A OBJECTIVE -------------------------------------------- 3-1

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS ---------------------------------- 3-1

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS ------------------------- 3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA ------------------------------------- 3-2

E PROGRAM APPROACH -------------------------------------- 3-2

F NOS PARTICIPATION ------------------------------------- 3-5

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE ------------ ---------------------- 3-5

H DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------- 3-6

IV UNWORKED AREAS --------------------------------------------- 4-1

V CONCLUSIONS ------------------------------------------------ 5-1

APPENDIX

A SOLUBILITY OF MTN IN HYDROCARBON BINDER -------------- A-i

Figures

3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB --------- 3-14

3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5 AP in ANAPAlHTPB --------- 315

ix

3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPAlHTPB -------------- 3-16

3-4 Specific Volume- of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature--------------------------------------- 3-26

3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ---------------------- 3-31

3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Gulf AN) ------------------- 3-39

3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-40

3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ---------------------------- 44

3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73 ---------------- 57

3-10 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74 ------ 3-58

3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTBP Propellants ---------------------------- 3-65

3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140 --------------- 74

3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-89

3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (HMX) Formulation ANH-9 ----------------------------------- 3-93

3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN ---------- 3-96

3-16 Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------ 3-98

3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92 -------------------------------------- 3-118

3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-11 ------------------------------------- 3-121

3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-l06 ------------------------------------- 3-125

x

3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant) Batch No SB-78 -------------------------------------- 3130

Tables

21 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ---------------------------------- 2-4

22 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-5

23 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-6

3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN ------------------------------------------- 3-7

3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN --------------------------------------- 3-9

3-3 Propellant Exhaust Composition ----------------------- 3-13

3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations ----------------------------------- 3-18

3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-20

3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-21

3-7 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received Properties ------------------------------------------- 3-23

3-8 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics -------------------------------------- 3-24

3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-28

3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P---------------------------------------- 3-32

3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-33

3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPA1HTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-36

3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-38

xi

3-14 Evaluation of-Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 42

3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 43

3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants -------------------------- 45

3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------- 48

3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------ 3-50

3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB

Propellants ------------------------------------------ 3-52

3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations --------- 54

3-21 BATES-Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant ---- 3-59

3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant ---- 3-61

3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Level Variations ----- 3-66

3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (2 Ballistic Modifier) ------------------- 3-68

3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation ---------- 3-70

3-26 BATES Motor Test Data Summary AN-71 Propellant ------ 3-72

3-27 AN4APAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goals --------------------------------------------- 3-75

3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests -Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------ 3-76

3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-77

3-30 ANHMXHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX) --------------- 3-79

3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------------ 3-81

3-32 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHNXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-82

xii

3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests ----------------------------------------shy 3-83

3-34 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) ------------------------------shy 3-85

3-35 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX) -----------------------------shy 3-87

3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)-----------shy 3-90

3-37 ANHNXADHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation ----------------------------- 3-91

3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX DOA Plasticizer)------------- 3-94

3-39 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX IDP Plasticizer)------------- 3-95

3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Particle Size Variation (MX) ------- ------------------------- 3-97

3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - BallisticModifier Particle Size Variation ------------------------------ 3-99

3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-101

3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data --------------------------------- 3-103

3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A With Class E)---------------------------------------- 3104

3-45 ANHMXAPAiHTPB Formulation - HMX Level (Class E HMX) ---------------------------------------- 3-106

t46-PL Hazard Test Data (Class E)----------------------- 3-107

M3-47 NOS Space ShuttleAlternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation ----------------------- 3-109

3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured -------- 3-111

3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

ANHMXAPHTPB Propellant Type ----------------------- 3-113

3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant ---- 3-119

3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-33 Propellant ---- 3-122

3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-18 Propellant ---- 3-126

xiii

3-53 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties-vs Goal ----------------------------------- 3-128

3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend --------------------------- --------------------- 3-129

xiv

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

This report presents results from the JPL study to investigatethe feasibility of developing an acceptable alternate propellant systemfor the Shuttle solid rocket motor (SEM) boosters based on the non-chlorine containing oxidizer ammonium nitrate (AN) The following basic criteria for this Phase 0 feasibility study were established by the NASA-MSFC

(1) A five-month feasibility study would be undertaken

(2) Any candidate propellants must conform to a hazards classishyfication of Class 2 as determined by card gap tests

(3) The propellant exhaust must not contain more than 3 HC Zero HCl was to be the goal

Following the above guidelines the JPL began a Phase Zero fiveshymonth feasibility program in September of 1974 (Ref 1) JPL was directedby MSFC to investigate four basic propellant systems mutually agreed upon by MSFC and JPL These four basic propellant systems were the following

(1) AN20 Albinder

(2) AN10 Albinder

(3) AN5 AP20 Albinder

(4) AN5 AP10 Albinder

Toward the end of the Phase 0 program the above four basic proshypellants had been developed to a point of scale-up of each formulation to 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes loading and test firing of 227-kg(5-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests Programresults at this point had demonstrated that

(1) Good processability of an 88 solids loaded ammonium nitrate propellant was possible (Previous to this workthe maximum solids achieved with ammonium nitrate systems was approximately 80)

(2) A few percent (5 to 10) of ammonium perchlorate as a co-oxidizer in the ammonium nitrate systems was essential to satisfactory aluminum combustion

(3) An aluminum content of 20 in the ammonium nitrate system was considerably above optimum for maximum delivered specific impulse

With these results serving as new guidelines a fifth formulation was developed and evaluated in BATES motor tests This propellant formulation

1-1

was an 88 solids formulation of the following composition 63 AN10 AP15 Al12 HTPB binder

The main conclusion drawn from the results of this five-month feasibility study was that with the necessary time and funds the develshyopment of an alternate propellant system for the Shuttle SRM based largely on ammonium nitrate as the oxidizer was feasible The fifth propellant described above was selected as a baseline candidate system and served as the basis for establishing the goals and criteria for a Phase I follow-on effort to this feasibility study

The concept for the utilization of the alternate propellant was a dual propellant solid rocket motor -The Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor would be manufactured containing the alternate low-HCl propellant first as an outer layer of propellant followed by an inner layer of the current PBAN propellant modified to the new burning rate requirement During a Shuttle vehicle launch the baseline PBAN propellant would burn for the first phase of Shuttle Booster operation At an altitude of approxshyimately 1981 km (65000 ft) the PBAN propellant would be expended and the burning transitioned into the low-HCl (less than 3 by weight of the exhaust products) alternate propellant The feasibility of a satisshyfactory transition from a propellant with an all-ammonium perchlorate oxidizer to one consisting primarily of ammonium nitrate oxidizer was also demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by successfully manufacshyturing and test firing a dual propellant BATES motor charge

1-2

SECTION II

SUMMARY

This summary is a general over-view of the Alternate Propellant Program A more detailed summary of each respective area of effort is included in the main body of this report The primary objective of the program was to develop a candidate alternate propellant for the Shuttle SRM boosters which would eliminate or minimize the HCl in the exhaust from the solid propellant boosters during operations above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude A set of program constraints was defined to serve as guidelines for the Phase I program effort Among the constraints was the requirements of a Class 2 hazards classification for any candidate propellant The detailed constraints have been outlined in the foregoing pages Along with these program guidelines specific goals were estabshylished that were as follows

(1) Propellant burning rate = 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) Propellant pressure exponent of the burning rate lt 042

(3) Vacuum delivered specific impulse gt 2402 N-skg (245 s) at an expansion ratio of 716

(4) Matched burning rates of the alternate propellant and the baseline PBAN propellant system at 400 Ncm2 (580 psia)

(5) HCl content of the propellant exhaust lt 3

Goal (4) also introduced the requirement of modifying the burning rate of the existing Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a burning rate requirement consistent with the foregoing goals for the alternate proshypellant The burning rate requirement for the modified Shuttle baseline propellant PBAN propellant was established to be 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) chamber pressure

Three basic propellant systems were defined as candidate systems to be developed within these constraints and guidelines The three systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

Based on the results from the Phase 0 program that preceded this Phase I program it was established that the aluminum content would be held constant at 15 wt in all formulations Also the AP content of the No 1 and No 3 system was to be 10 A status summary of each of the three alternate propellant systems and the modified PBAN Shuttle baseline propellant follows

2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPAlHTPB

This propellant system contains 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) and 15 aluminum powder The development has progressed through the static testing of 32-kg (70-1b) propellant charges in the BATES motor static testing being limited to sea level conditions A vacuum delivered Isp at an expansion ratio eof 70 corrected from the sea level data of 2281 N-skg (2326 s) has been demonstrated This measured value of Is is equivalent to 888 of the theoretical value at the test condiions A burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) of 0546 cms (0215 ins) with a pressure exponent of the burning rate of 0278 has also been demonstrated with BATES motor firings As can be seen the Isp and burning rate goals have not been attained whereas the pressure exponent goal has been exceeded by a considerable margin It is doubtful at this point whether the Isp or the burning rate goals can be achieved with this basic system within the present program conshystraints One way of achieving the ballistic goals would be to increase the AP content of this propellant To do so however would increase the HC content of the exhaust above that of the current exhaust conshystraint of not more than 3 wt of HC1

In order to meet the specific impulse and burning rate goals a propellant formulation containing 20 wt of AP was developed and tested first in 45-kg (10-1b) motors followed by two 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings The specific impulse goal of 2402 N-hkg (245 s) was attained with this propellant The burning rate at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) exceeded the 089-cms (035-ins) goal A burning rate of 097 cms (038 ins) was measured The pressure exponent measure was 048 which is higher than the goal However it is believed that this pressure exponent can be reduced The HC1 content in the exhaust at an expansion ratio of 716 is calculated to be 6 wt This 6 HC1 still represents an 80 reduction in the HC1 content from that of the baseline PBAN propellant system The-hazards classification of the ANAPA1HTPB system is Class 2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXA1HTPB

This system contains 15 aluminum also but no AP Due to a cutback in projected program funds however thedecision was made to discontinue the development of this system This decision was made very early in the development phase of this propellant and therefore no useful ballistic data is available at this time

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB

Of the three alternate propellant systems initially planned for development this system is the best candidate to date for meeting all the program goals Theoretical calculations showed that the maximum specific impulse for this propellant system was in the range of 170 to 175 HMX (Table 3-2) Therefore this system with three levels of HMX was developed scaled up to 113-kg (250-1b) mixes and loaded and test fired in 45-kg (10-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b)

2-2

BATES motor firing Of the three levels of HMX evaluated in motor firing the highest ISD was measured with the formulation containing 15 wt HMX showing that the experimental optimum HMX level- is somewhat less than 17 wt for this system The 15 and 17 wt HMX formulations were demonstrated to be Class 2 whereas the 175 wt HMX propellant was borderline Class 7

Preliminary results from Crawford Bomb burning rates showed a burning rate of 0950 cms (0374 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) for the 17 wt HMX formulation Time did not permit verifying this burning rate in motor tests prior to committing to the scale-up and loading of the 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors However indications -were that the 089-cms (035-ins) burning rate would be achieved in motor tests with 3 ballistic modifier in the formulation -- a cutback from the 4 in the other two HMX formulations In the interest of time a reduction in the ballistic modifier (a mixed burning rate catalyst) of 1 was made in the scale-up propellant batch from which the BATES motors were loaded Unfortunately this was too large a reduction in modifier and test results from firing the BATES motors showed a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) for the 17 wt HMX formulation (ANH-33)

The formulations of the five candidate alternate propellants and the modified PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 2-1 Table 2-2 lists the theoretical ballistic properties of the six propelshylants and also the HCi and A1203 (particulates) contents Table 2-3 summarizes the measured performance values as determined by BATES motor firings The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions with nozzle expansion ratios of 716 The measured sea level values were then corrected to vacuum values by the following equation

PeAe I vac ms =-I5 pact ms

D SYSTEM NO i MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE

The work statement of this Alternate Propqllant Program also called for modifying the current Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) while not changing the major ballistic properties such as I__ of the system This effort has been completed and the 081-cms (032-ins) burning rate met and demonstrated in motor firings The desired modification was accomplished by removing the iron oxide burningshyrate catalysts (Fe203 ) and adjusting the particle size blend of the oxidizer The burning-rate equation for this modified baseline is r = 00668 Pc0 228

A detailed discussion of the three candiate alternate propellant systems as well as the total program effort follows

2-3

Ingredients

Solids

AN

AP

HMX (Class E)

Al

Fe203

AD

CU-0202 P

Binder

HTPBe

PBANd

Table 2-1 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

TP-H1148a AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

86 88 88 88 88 88

-- 5900 5100 44o0 4300 4150

6960 1000 2000 1000 1000 1000

-- -- -- 1500 1700 1750

1600 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

040 b -- -- -- -shy

-- 200 -- 200 100 200

-- 200 200 200 200 200

-- 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

1400 -- -- -shy

aCurrent Shuttle baseline propellant also to be adjusted

bTo be adjusted

CCured with a diisocyanate (IPDI)

dCured with an epoxy (Der-331)

Table 2-2 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Parameter TP-H1148 AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Tf K 3471 2695 2845 2748 2765 2756

Te K

C ms (fts)

Isp0 N-skg (s)

2327

1371 (5155)

25723 (2623)

1563

1481 (4860)

24203 (2468)

1678

1568 (4949)

24624 (2511)

1570

1505 (4937)

24507 (2499)

1575

1513 (4965)

24634 (2512)

1571

1509 (4950)

24556 (2504)

U Is vac (a E 716)N-skg (s)

27135 (2767)

25684 (2619)

26115 (2663)

26007 (2652)

26144 (2666)

26066 (2658)

HC in exhaust 209 303 61 303 303 303

A1203 in exhaust 302 283 283 283 283 28

Table 2-3 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Ballistic Property

Program Goal

AN-25

Candidate Propellant Test Resultsa

AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

C ms (fts) - 1432 1460 1450 1431 1415

(4700) (4791) (4759) (4694) (4643)

C efficiency - 953 972 962 945 945

Isp vac at E = 716 N-skg (s)

_gt2403 (245)

22849 (2330)

24026 (2450)

23752 (2422)

23183 (2364)

23173 (2363)

Isp efficiency 888 923 912 887 8901

Burning rate cms at 690 Ncm2 (ins at 1000 psia)

gt_089 (035)

053 (021)

097 (0 38 )b

079 (031)

081 (032)

074 (029)

Pressure exponent n lt042 028 048 031 037 031

Hazard

classification 2 2 2 2 2 7 (marginal)

aTest data from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings at PC 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

bData point based on 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

SECTION III

PHASE I PROGRAM

A OBJECTIVE

The program objective of the Phase I program the results of which are documented in this report was to develop an alternate propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster motors which would eliminate or minimize the H1 in the exhaust from the motors

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS

The Phase I development effort was conducted within some very specific constraints These program constraints were

(1) Minimize the design impact on the present solid booster

(2) Eliminate or minimize Llt 3) the HC1 release from the booster motors during operation above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude

(3) Any candidate alternate propellant must confori to a Class 2 hazards classification

(4) The program was to be conducted within government as a contingency

(5) The payload schedule and cost impact of the Phase I effort on the Shuttle project were to be assessed concurrently

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS

Three basic pandidate propellant systems were selected for consideration in this development program These propellant systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

In addition to the above three completely new propellant systems a modification of the current baseline PBAN propellant was to be made This modification consisted of adjusting the burning rate of the PBAN propellant to a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) [The baseline PBAN propellant burning rate was approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)]

3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA

As has been stated the criteria for the Phase I program effort was established as a result of the Phase 0 feasibility study The scope of effort and propellant performance goals thus established were as follows

(1) Initiate the development of three basic candidate alternate propellant systems

(2) Modify the current Shuttle baseline PHAN propellant to meet

the new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins)

(3) The propellant performance goals were

(a) Burning rate = 689 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(b) Pressure exponent lt 042

(c) Delivered vacuum specific impulse at an expansion ratio of 716 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(d) Theburning rates of the candidate alternate propellants and the Shuttle baseline PBAN propellant should be matched at a pressure of 400 Ncm 2 (580 psia)

(e) HCI in the exhaust _ 3

(4) The development program was to include in addition to - the above

(a) Processing studies

(b) Physical property studies

(c) ropellant aging studies

(d) Propellant hazards classification testing

(e) Propellant performance testing

(f) Investigation of the compatibility between the alternate propellant and the current baseline PBAN propellant and between the alternate propellant and the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) insulation

E PROGRAM APPROACH

The following outline details the general approach taken in the investigation of the various aspects of this program

3-2

1 Theoretical Studies

() Maximize delivered specific impulse at 88 solids

(a) Aluminum content

(b) HMX content

(c) High-energy plasticizer content (TMETN)

2 Burning Rate Studies 089 cms (035 ins) Goal

(1) Particle size blend of oxidizer

(2) Investigate and compare catalyst type and concentration

(a) Fe203

(b) Ferrocene

(c) Milori blue

(d) CU-0202 P shy

(e) Inert plasticizer level (DOA)

(f) High-energy plasticizer (TMETN)

(g) HMX

(h) Zirconium powder

(i) Other

Burning rates to be determined via Crawford Bomb strand burning and 5 x 6 motor tests

3 Physical Property Studies

(1) Binder stoichiometry

(2) Plasticizer level and type

(a) Free plasticizer

(b) Internal plasticizer (chemically bonded)

(3) Degree of crosslinking

(4) Cure time and temperature

3-3

Evaluate properties Tensile strength

Elongation

Modulus

Hardness

Density

4 Processing Studies

(1) Process variables

(a) Mixer speeds

(b) Mix duration

(c) Ingredient addition sequence

(d) Other

5 Compatibility Studies

(1) PBAN propellant to alternate propellant bond

(a) As cured surfaces

(b) Machined surfaces

(2) Alternate propellant to insulation bond

6 Safety Hazard Tests

(I) Card gap

(2) Impact

(3) Auto-ignition shy

(4) Blast~ng cap

(5) Friction sensitivity

(6) Spark sensitivity

3-4

7 Aging Studies

(1) Propellant aging-physical properties

(a) Ambient temperature

(2) Propellant-propellant bond

(a) Ambient temperature

8 Motor Testing

(1) 5 x 6 motors - pressure only

(2) BATES motors - pressure and thrust

9 Shuttle Baseiine Propellant Modification

Adjust burning rate to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

F NOS PARTICIPATION

The Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head Maryland wLs funded by JPL to participate in certain aspects of the Alternate Propellant Program This funding of the NOS was a relatively low level of funding and designed to support the program through the investigation of certain very specific tasks The general areas of the NOS participation were

(1) Investigation of the solubility of the high-energy plasticizer TMETN in (a) R-45 HTPB polymer and (b) R-45 HTPB polymerDOA plasticizer

(2) Determine the limits of TMETN for a Class 2 propellant in an (a) all AN propellant system (b) ANAP system and (c) ANAPHMX system

(3) Investigation of the limits of HMX Ior a Class 2 inert binder propellent

(4) Hazards testing of candidate propellant formulations

(5) Investigation of HMX and AP particle size ef~eots and ballistic modifier effects on candidate propellant ballistics

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE

The Phase I effort of the Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program began April 1 1975 as an 18-month program The program schedule was later revised and lengthened to a 30-month program Much later in the program (April 1976) following several revisions to the program

3-5

schedule the planned scope of effort was reduced and the schedule cut to

conclude the program on June 30 1976 This reduction in scope and schedule

time became necessary due to a cut in the anticipated program funds

H DISCUSSION

Theoretical Studies

As has been discussed in the introduction to this report the Phase 0 feasibility study (Ref 1) results established the basis for

the Phase I effort Theoretical studies had been conducted during the Phase 0 work analyzing the effects of solids loading oxidizer ratios

binder composition etc on the thermoballistic properties of the proshy

pellant types under consideration Therefore at the start of the Phase I

program effort the guidelines for formulating the candidate alternate propellants to be developed were fairly well defined Consequently the

theoretical studies reported here involved only formulations with certain

constant parameters such as 88 total solids 15 aluminum and a binder based on plasticized HTPB

Table 3-1 gives summary tabulations of the primary thermoballistic properties of a number of candidate formulations containing AN AP and

HMX as oxidizers and the binder plasticized with the high-energy plasticizer

TMETN Iron oxide at the 1 level was included as a burning rate modifier The relevant Shuttle SRM baseline PBAN propellant properties are also shown in the table for reference As can be seen the formulation containing 25 HMX 10 AP and 25 TMETN plasticizer in the binder (12 HTPB binder) matches within 49 N-skg (05-s) specific impulse to that of the Shuttle baseline propellant That formulation however would be a Class 7 proshy

pellant and therefore could not be considered as a candidate

Table 3A2 shows the effects of varying the AP content the HMX conshy

tent and the type and content of the burning rate modifiers A combination

of ammonium dichromate (AD) and copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was selected

as the primary burning rate modifiers for this work Approximately two seconds of impulse difference is calculated for equal amounts of Fe203 and mixed AD and CU-0202 P (4 Fe203 versus 2 AD and 2 CU-0202 P) The calculations also show that for the 88 total solids system with 15 aluminum and 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) tpe theoretical optimum amount of HMX for maximum impulse is in the range of 17 to 175 The

experimental optimum HMX level for maximum delivered IsD however

appears to be something less than 17 wt This is eviaenced by the results from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests of propellants containing 150 170 and 175 HMX The measured ballistics of these formulations

are tabulated in Table 2-3 in the summary section of this report As will be seen in Table 2-3 the highest measured Isp with an HMX formulation

was with FormulationNumber ANH-12 which contains 150 HMX

These theoretical calculations referred to above were made using

a JPL computer program based on the minimization of free energy to

calculate both the equilibrium and frozen flow thermoballistic properties

of chemical compositions

3-6

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN

Formulationa Ballistics

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

AN AP HIX Al

TMETN in

Binder Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P T0 K C

ms (fts)

T (Sea Lcve Optimum) N-skg (s)

Vac 1 (c = 7)

N-skg (a)

Shuttle PBAN Baseline Propellantb(Density 17714 gcm 3 00640 lbin3) 3515 1578 (5176) 25752 (2626) 27136 k2767)

62 10 0 15 0 1 2825 1503 (4931) 24536 (2502) 25966 (2648)

62 10 0 15 10 1 2902 1511 (4956) 24674 (2516) 26095 (2661)

62 10 0 15 20 1 2977 1518 (4980) 24791 (2528) 26213 (2673)

62 10 0 15 25 1 2982 1521 (4991) 24850 (2534) 26272 (2679)

62 0 10 15 20 1 2910 1526 (5005) 24870 (2536) 26321 (2684)

52 0 20 15 20 1 2973 1546 (5072) 25174 (2567) 26645 (2717)

47 0 25 15 20 1 3005 1557 (5108) 25321 (2582) 26900 (2743)

62 0 10 15 25 1 2916 1529 (5016) 24929 (2542) 26380 (2690)

52 0 20 15 25 1 2978 1550 (5084) 25233 (257 ) 26704 (2723)

47 0 25 15 25 1 3010 1561 (5120) 25380 (2588) 26860 (2739)

52 10 10 15 10 1 2964 1532 (5028) 24968 (2546) 26419 (2694)

42 10 20 15 10 1 3027 1554 (5100) 25272 (2577) 26753 (2728)

37 10 25 15 10 1 3658 1565 (5136) 25419 (2592) 26909 (2744)

52 10 10 15 20 1 3039 1540 (5052) 25095 (2559) 26519 (2706)

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN (Continuation 1)

Formulationa Ballistics -

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier TMETN Is (Sea Vac L

in C Level Optimum) (E = 7 AN AP HMX Al Binder Fe203 AD CU-0202 P Tc K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

42 10 20 15 20 1 3102 1562 (5124) 25399 (2590) 26870 (2740)

37 10 25 15 20 1 3134 1573 (5160) 25546 (2605) 27037 (2757)

52 10 10 15 25 1 3044 1543 (5063) 25154 (2565) 26596 (2712)

42 10 20 15 25 1 3107 1565 (5135) 25448 (2595) 26929 (2746)

37 10 25 15 25 1 3138 1576 (5171) 25595 (2610) 27086 (2762)

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

bThe Shuttle baseline propellant has 16 Al 86$ total solids

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN

Formulation ballistics

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids)

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Pc = 690 Ncm

2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Moaifier

DensitygcM3

(lbin3 ) AN AP HMX Al

PropellantFormulation

No Fe2 0q AD CU-0202 P To K

C

Ms (fts)

Is (SeaLevel Optimum)

N-skg (s)

Vac ISp(E 7)

N-skg (s)

16634 (00601) 62 10 - 15 1 2728 1500 (4920) 24468 (2495) 25950 (2647)

0 16717 (00604) 61 10 - 15 2 2716 1490 (4887) 24320 (2480) 25801 (2631)

16800 (00607) 56 15 - 15 2 2778 1497 (4913) 24438 (2492) 25929 (2644)

16911 (00611) 51 20 - 15 2 2839 1505 (4938) -24566 (2505) 26046 (2656)

16994 (00614) 46 25 - 15 2 2904 1512 (4962) 24674 (2516) 26164 (2668)

17105 (00618) 41 30 - 15 2 2969 1519 (4985) 24791 (252b) 26282 (2680)

17188 (00621) 36 35 - 15 2 3032 1526 (5007) 24899 (2539) 24390 (2691)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 4 2692 1469 (4820) 24016 (2449) 25478 (2598)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 (AN-25) - 2 2 2695 1481 (4860) 24203 (2468) 25684 (2619)

16745 (0n605) 51 20 - 15 - 2 2841 1513 (4965) 24693 (2518) 26194 (26741)

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 1)

Pl1si~sFormulitiona

Theoreticl Equilibrium Flow Calculations = Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant IS (Sea Vac I gcm3 Formulation C Love Optimum) (c = 7) (lbin 3 ) AN PP HmX Pi No Fe20q AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg ()

16911 (00611) 51 20 15 (AN-71) 2 2845 1508 (4949) 24624 (2511) 26115 (266-)

16828 (00608) 51 20 15 1 1 2841 1511 (4957) 24654 (2514) 26145 (2666)

17160 (00620) 44 10 15 15 4 2748 1492 (4895) 24320 (2480) 25811 (2632)

17216 (00622) 42 10 17 15 4 2756 1495 (4906) 24360 (2484) 25850 (263b)

- ) 415 10 175 15 4 2581 1500 (4921) 25850 (2636)

) 40 10 190 15 4 2794 1495 (4906) 257b2 (2629)

39 10 200 15 4 2776 1490 (4888) 25723 (2623)

17049 (00616) 44 10 15 15 (ANH-12) - 2 2 2748 1504 (4937) 24507 (2499) 2007 (2652)

17077 (00617) 42 10 17 15 2 2 2754 1508 (4947) 24546 (2503) 26056 (2657)

17049 (00616) 4 10 17 15 (ANH-33) 1 2 2765 1513 (4965) 24634 (2512) 26145 (2666)

L

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 2)

BallisticsFormulations

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant is (Sea Vac Is gcm3 Formulation C Level Optimum) M (ibin3 ) AN AP HMX Al No Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

16828 (00608) 44 10 17 15 - - 2779 1525 (5005) 24781 (2527) 26311 (2683)

16994 (00614) 44 10 17 15 - 2 2784 1518 (4981) 24723 (2521) 26243 (2676)

16911 (00611) 44 10 17 15 - 1 1 2778 1522 (4994) 24752 (2524) 26272 (2679)

17077 1509 (4950) 24556 (2504) 26066 (2658)(00617) 415 10 175 15 (ANH-18) - 2 2 2757

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

2 Exhaust Products

The exhaust compositions of the five candidate propellants listed in Table 2-I in the report summary and that of the Shuttle PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 3-3 The exhaust species are shown as weight percent of the total exhaust and the exhaust composition is that at the exit plane of the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 716 calculated as the equilibrium composition

3 Combustion and Burning Rate

Two problems which were anticipated and confirmed as problems early in the Phase 0 program were low combustion efficiency and low burning rates of the aluminized ammonium nitrate propellant These subjects are discussed individually in the sections covering the different propellant systems However a few brief general comments will be made here

It was demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by way of 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings that a few percent of AP was essential in the ammonium nitrate propellants in order to effect satisfactory combustion of aluminum An 88 solids 15 Al ammonium nitrate formulation containing no AP was test fired in several 227-kg (5-1b) test motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors In each case large amounts of aluminum slag remained in the motors after firing Molten aluminum could be seen being ejected through the nozzle during the test firings Greatly improved combustion resulted from incorporating 5 AP in the formulation The incorporation of 10 AP resulted in virtually zero slag remaining in the motor Therefore 10 AP was selected as a standard for this Alternate Propellant Program The three photographs of BATES motor tests (Figs 3-1 to 3-3 containing 0 5 and 10 AP respectively in the formulations) show rather dramatically the effect of AP on the combustion The glowing streams in the 0 and 5 AP firings (greatly reduced in the 5 AP test however) are produced by molten aluminum

A second technique investigated as a combustion improvement techshynique was the incorporation of zirconium metal powder into the propellant The basis for this idea was due to the fact that zirconium powder has a much lower ignition temperature than that of aluminum powder and has a relatively high heat of combustion The idea was to take advantage of this lower ignition temperature of zirconium powder to facilitate the ignition and burning of the aluminum by igniting and burning and thereby supplying sufficient added heat to the system to more effectively ignite and burn the aluminum This technique however did not demonstrate any real improvement in the measured performance but rather a decrease and was therefore not investigated beyond the initial BATES motor test firings

3-12

Table 3-3 Propellant Exhaust Comsition

Propellant PBAN AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Solids 86 88 88 88 88 88 AP 6960 10 20 10 10 10 HMX - - - 15 17 175

Tel K 2327 1563 1678 1570 1575 1571

MoI Wt of Products 2756 2309 2360 2285 2275 2281

Speciesa wt

AlCl 00094 - - - -AIC10 00086 - - - shy

-A1C12 00098 - - -

AICI3 00053 - - - shy-AlHO2 00012 - - -

Cl 02961 - 00007 - -

CO 232928 189953 191619 256367 264700 267944 39486 61302 58679 46105 44899 42773CO2

Cr203(L) - 10020 02090 10020 06050 10020 Cu - 00038 00184 00044 00044 00044 CuC(L) - 14543 11840 14513 14475 14513 CUM - 00891 04188 00901 00940 00901

-Fe 00134 - - -

FeC12 05998 00621 00621 00596 00583 00583 H 00191 00001 00002 00001 00001 00001 H2 18804 29663 27301 32744 32941 33221

aCl 209284 30346 60149 30357 30346 30357 HO 00321 - 00002 - -

H20 101499 154534 157204 95971 91721 86539 85862 221739 203436 225998 228954 226707N2

NH3 - 00905 00003 00005 00005 00005 NO 00018 05780 - - shy

0 00005 shy02 00003 - - shy

A1203(C) 302097 283418 283418 283418 283418 283418

aConcentrations less than 1 x I0-5 moles100 g exhaust are omitted

L = liquid C = crystalline

3-13

ft

iI

Figure 3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

Imm

Figure 3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5$ AP in ANAPA1HTPB

go

Figure 3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

A third technique investigated was that of using a chromate-coated aluminum powder in place of the standard aluminum powder This techniquealso failed to produce increased combustion efficiency of the aluminum in the propellant

Specific burning rate subjects are discussed in the discussions of the different propellant systems however some general comments will be made here As can be seen in Table 3-2 the proper selection of a burning rate catalyst must be based on more than burning-rate considerations when a rigorous effort is made to maximize specific impulse As can be seen a significant difference is calculated for the theoretical Isp between incorporating the different burning rate modifiers at the same concentration Also the modifier used can have a strong effect on the physical properties of the propellant

4 Physical Properties

This effect of specific ingredients on the physical properties of an ammonium nitrate system arises from the fact that chemical reactions other than the normal curing reactions between the prepolymer and the curing agent enter into the overall curing reactions In most compositepropellant systems the physical properties are determined largely -in addition to binder type and solids loading by the degree of crosslinkingand completeness of reactions with available cure site6 In the ammonium nitrate system however it appears that free protons produced in the system react with the double bond in the prepolymer (HTPH) backbone causing crosslinks at these sites Ammonium dichromate appears to contribute in a greater way to this crosslinking at the double bonds than some of the other burning-rate modifiers investigated On the other hand the AD subtracts less from the calculated Isp The formulating and development of an AN system therefore is complicated by these considerations The physical property problems are greatly complicated Nonconventional techniques must be found and employed in the physical property considerations in order to develop satisfactory control of adequate physical properties

5 High-Energy Plasticizer Studies

One of the approaches investigated on the program was use of high-energy plasticizers td achieve higher delivered specific impulse propellants A review of available nitrate ester plasticizers indicated that TMETN (111-trimethylolethane trinitrate) was the most promising candidate This selection was made on the basis of overall considerations of compatibility performance cost and availability Theoretical performance calculations on some typical propellant formulations with 20 wt TMETN are shown in Table 3-4

Propellant development work on this effort was done by NOS (NavalOrdnance Station Indian Head Md) Two basic formulations were inshyvestigated one with no ammonium perchlorate and one with 5 wt ammonium perchlorate A polyester (R-18) binder was selected and initial development work was done at the 82 wt solids level with 1200 wt TMETN Small

3-17

Table 3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations

Formulation 1-A

Ammonium nitrate 360 Aluminum 180 R-18 60 HMX 100 TMETN 200 Ammonium perchlorate 100

1000

Density gcm3 17300 (lbin3 ) (00625)

Flame temperature 34314 K (OF) (5723)

Vacuum specific 27115 impulse N-skg (s) (2765) E = 716

Pc 483 Ncm2

(700 psi)

Weight percent 278 HC1 in exhaust

1-B

310 180 60 100 200 150

1000

17411 (00629)

3481 (5806)

27155 (2769)

417

1-C 1-D

410 410 180 180 60 60 50 -

200 200 100 150

1000 1000

17217 17244 (00622) (00623)

3410 3430 (5678) (5714)

26988 26880 (2752) (2741)

278 416

3-18

mixes were made to check ingredient compatibility and propellant laboratorysafety properties Results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-5 along with the formulations These tests indicated that the ingredients were compatible and safety properties were adequate The two formulations were then scaled up into larger batches and card gap samples were loaded and tested Both formulations were uncastable so that the card gapsamples had to be hand packed The card gap test results are shown in Table 3-5 and suggest both formulations meet the card gap requirementsfor Class 2 propellant (lt 70 cards) However these results may be biased to give lower card gap sensitivity because of voids in the samples

Four additional formulations were then evaluated at the reduced solids level of 74 wt to improve propellant castability The polyester(R-18) binder system was used and TMETN level was held constant at 20 wt The variations made with these four formulations were variations in the levels of HMX AP and AN All the formulations were eastable and card gap samples were prepared and tested on each The details of the formulations and card gap test results are summarized in Table 3-6 General conclusion from this work was that for this propellant systemwith 20 wt TMETN a maximum level of 5 to 10 wt HMX can be used and meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

Work with the polyester (R-18) binder system was terminated and shifted to the HTPB (R-45) binder system when the early experimentalwork indicated that program goals would probably not be achieved with the polyester (R-18) Initial tests by NOS showed the solubility of TMETN (also referred to as MTN) in R-45 at 210 C (700F) was less than 1 wt They then conducted cosolubility studies with other plasticizersComplete details of these studies are shown in Appendix A Summary conclusions from this effort are as follows

(1) R-18 and adiponitrile are not soluble in R-45M

(2) DOA is more effective as a coplasticizer than TP90B and PPG-1225

(3) Maximum theoretical performance gains possible by replaceshyment of DOA with TMETN within solubility limits are about 176 N-skg (18-s) impulse and 0028 gcm 3 (O001 lbin 3 ) density

A decision was made to terminate further work with TMETN at this point in the program Primary reason for the decision was that the small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justifythe potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradation

6 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrates

An evaluation of available ammonium nitrate (AN) types was made to provide a basis for selection of the AN in development of the propellant formulations Ammonium nitrate is the major oxidizer used in all

3-19

Table 3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations with TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids)

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder TMETN Aluminum HMX Ammonium perchlorate Ammonium nitrate

Initial card gap tests

0 Cards 35 Cards 50 Cards

70 Cards

Laboratory safety tests

Impact mm (3 consecutive positive values 5-kg weight)

Sliding friction kg (ib) 24 ms (8 fts)

Electrostatic discharge- J

(5000 V)

NOS SCC-74-69 NOS SCC-74-074

600 600 1200 1200 1800 1800 2000 1000 - 500

4400 4900

10000 10000

-pos

pos pos pos neg neg

150 -125 150 200

gt-435 (gt_960) 435 ( 960) A35 (gt_960)

gt435 (gt960)

2125 125 gt125 L125

3-20

Table 3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids)

Formulation No NOS Mod I NOS Mod II NOS 1C NOS ID

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder -600 600 600 600 TMETN 2000 2000 2000 2000 Aluminum 1800 1800 1800 1800 HMX 2000 2000 -500 Ammonium perchlorate - 500 1000 1500 Ammonium nitrate 3600 3100 4100 4100

10000 10000 IbO00 10000

No 8 Blasting Cap neg neg -

Test

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards -shy pos 40 Cards pos neg

(42 cards) 50 Cards pos pos neg 60 Cards neg 65 Cards pos 70 Cards pos neg neg 75 Cards pos -

80 Cards pos - -

85 Cards - Ipos and I neg - -

90 Cards 2 pos - -

100 Cards pos I pos and I neg - -

112 Cards pos - -

120 Cards pos neg - -

121 Cards 1 pos and 2 neg - -

123 Cards neg - - -

125 Cards neg 150 Cards neg

3-21

three of the basic alternate propellants ANAPAlHTPB ANHMXAlHTBP

and ANHMXAPAlHTPB

Some of the problems associated with making propellants with AN are

(1) Low true density of AN (1725 gcm3 ) which limits solids loading for processable propellants

(2) Large size and hollowness of unground as-received prills

(3) Hygroscopicity of AN and particle agglomeration

(4) Slow burning rates

(5) Low specific impulse

(6) Volumetric changes with crystal phase changes

The following three types of AN were selected for evaluation

(1) Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated

(2) U S Agri-Chemicals industrial with anti-caking agent

(3) Monsanto industrial E-2 phase stabilized

These three were selected because they are generally representative of what is currently available from industry Table 3-7 compares the as-received properties of the three AN types Table 3-8 compares some of the processing characteristics of the three AN types

The Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated has the advantage of having no additives that generally tend to reduce propellant specific impulse However this AN has a soft prill that breaks readily and is very hygroscopic Both the unground and ground materials agglomerate severely even in controlled environments These difficulties in controlling particle-size distribution with this type AN pose real problems in achieving and reproducing maximum specific impulse and burning rate in processable propellants Cost of this type AN is higher than the other two types because it is a specialty product

The U S Agri-Chemicals industrial AN has a 043 to 077 wt coating of anticaking agent on the prills The coating consists of 90 talc and 10 Petro-Ag It keeps the material free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture In addition it makes a harder prill which does not break readily Good control of particle-size distribution is possible with this type of AN Consequently processable propellants are achievable with reproducible burning rates and delivered specific impulse

3-22

Oc Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received PropertiesTable 3-7

Vendor

ltC7

Type

Appearance

Total nitrogen

Approx assay

Moisture (when manufactured)

to Additive

Screen size (US Sieve Series)

Loose bulk density gcm3

3)(lbft

Prill Density gcm3

Approx cost kg (lb)

aphase stabilized

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticakang Agent)

White prills

None

254 (115)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

industrial (Coated with Anticaking Agent)

White free-flowing spheres

(prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

025 wt min

043 to 077 wt $ coating bagent

00 wt max retained on No 6 50 wt $ max through No 6 and on a No 8 940 wt max through No 6 and on No 20 10 wt max through No 20

154

154 (7 0 )d

Monsanto Agricultural Products Co

inoustrial E-2

Pearly white free-flowing

spheres (prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

05 wt min

04 to 06 wt E-2 additive c

10 wt max retained on No 6 100 wt through No 14

09611 (60)

161

a157 (71

b90 tale and 10 petroleum agent eMgo according to US Patent 3030179

taxesdBulk costs - carload quantities typically 54431-kg (60-ton) minimum Does not include freight or

Table 3-8

Property

Handling characteristics to unground

Particle size after tumble drying unground

Grinding characteristics particle size after coarse grinding in Raymond hammer mill with 4000-rpm hammer speed 160-rpm feed speed 032-cm (18-in) screen

Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticaking Agent)

Soft prill breaks easily Very hygroscopic and agglom-

erates severely

104 to 1000 pm

480 pm (avg)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

Industrial (Coated with Anttcaking Agent)

Fairly hard prill does not break readily Remains free

flowing with reasonable pro-tection from moisture

840 to 3360 pm

2200 pm (avg)

140 um (avg)

Monsanto AgraculLural Products Co

Industrial E-2 (Phase-Stabilized)

Very hard and dense prill does not bread readily

Remains free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture

1410 to 3360 pm

2000 pm (avg)

2bO pm (avg)

The Monsanto industrial E-2 phase-stabilized AN has 04-to 06 wt E-2 additive This material is MgO which pbase stabilizes-the ammonium nitrate according to U S Patent 3030179 (assigned to Monsanto Company) Figure 3-4 shows the specific volume of Monsanto E-2 AN and of AN that has not been phase stabilized versus temperature The solid line is for the Monsanto E-2 AN and the dotted line is for the AN that has not been phase stabilized Note that the volumetric changes associated with Phase III have been eliminated in the phase-stabilizedMonsanto E-2 AN Comparing Monsanto E-2 AN with the other types inTable 3-7 and 3-8 the following conclusions can be made

(1) Monsanto E-2 AN has a higher prill density than U S Agri-Chemicals AN (161 gcm3 versus 154 gcm3 )

(2) Because Monsanto E-2 is a very hard anddense prill normal handling and tumble drying does not significantly break prills Particle-size distribution remains in the range of 1410 to 3360 pm with an average size of about 2000 m

(3) Coarse grinds of Monsanto E-2 AN have an average particle size of about 280 pm which is in the size range (200 to 400 pm) for better fit with the other solids

(4) The Monsanto E-2 AN remains free flowing in both the ungroundand ground states with reasonable protection from moisture

(5) Cost of the Monsanto E-2 AN in large bulk quantities is 157 1kg (71 [lb) which is comparable to other AN types which are not phase stabilized

ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant batches have been made with all three of the AN types discussed above In general results were as follows

(1) The propellant made with Monsanto E-2 AN had lower endshyof-mix viscosities and longer casting lives than the proshypellant made with the other two types of AN

(2) Burning rates with the Monsanto E-2 AN were either comparable or slightly faster

Based on these results Monsanto E-2 AN was selected as the preferred AN type for the following reasons

(1) It is easily processed with good particle-size control It remains free flowing in both the unground and ground states with reasonable protection from moisture The prill does not readily break with normal handling or tumble drying

(2) It has typically a 5 higher prill density This lowers propellant volumetric solids loading which improves castability

(3) This AN can be ground to more optimum size distributions for improved solids packing

3-25

065

063 063

1

- BOWDEN

MONSANTO E-2 -

I

PHASE ILr

E

uS 061 IIshy

0 -

CU 059

057

055

-100 -50

Figure 3-4

0 50 100

TEMPERATURE degC

Specific Volume of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature

150 200

3-26

(4) It does not have a talc anticaking coating which appears

to accelerate propellant viscosity buildup

(5) Phase stabilization minimizes volumetric changes with varying

temperature due to phase changes

(6) This AN gives comparable or slightly faster burning rates

(7) It has a comparable price to other AN types in large bulk

quantities

7 ANAPAlHTPB ( 3 Wt HC1 Exhaust)

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished

on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraint of lt 3 wt HCl in the propellant exhaust

This constraint is met by limiting the AP level in the formulation to

( 10 wt

a Burning Rate Studies Initial burning rate studies were

made to evaluate different ballistic modifier types and levels with

the basic 88 wt solids ANAPAlHTPB propellant The selection of

the ballistic modifiers was limited to those that were

(1) Commercially available

(2) Proved successful for use within rubber base propellants

(3) Non-migrating

(4) Reasonably priced

selectedAmmonium dichromate (NH4)2Cr207 at the 2 wt level was

as the primary ballistic modifier for the following reasons

(1) AN is the major oxidizer

(2) AD has been used successfully for years with AN propellants

Other ballistic modifiers were used in conjunction with the AD to enhance

burning rate and attempt to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms

(035 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) Table 3-9 shows the formulations evaluatedand the cured strand burning rates obtained

The propellant formulations were mixed as small (1000 to 1500 g)

batches using a 38-liter (1-gal) vertical Bramley mixer The propellant

was cast into RAM-225 released molds that formed individual propellant

strands and was then cured After cure the propellant strands were tested

in a conventional Crawford Bomb strand burner A subsequent study

discussed in the section on ANUNXAPAlHTPB propellant showed that

3-27

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Formulation wt Crawford Bomb Data

rb cms (ins)

Batch No

Total Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m)

Other Ballistic Modifier

Oxidizer Blend CoarseFine

At 345 Nem2

and 210C (500 psia and 700F)

At 690 Ncm2

and 210C (1000 psia and 700 F)

o

30

31 55

88 6o

59 57

10 15 2

2 2

Fe20Q

Fe203 Fe203

1

2 4

4555

442558 425575

0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0279 (0110)

0538 (0212)

0475 (0187)

0432 (0170)

32

33

49

34

60

59

57

59

2

2

2

2

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite Fe203

1

2

4

1 1

4555

442558

425575

442558

0462 (0182)

0564 (0222)

0472 (0186)

0493 (0194)

0627 (0247)

0759 (0299)

0671 (0264)

0737 (0290)estimated

50 57 2 Copper Chromite Fe203

2 2 425575 0511 (0201) 0699 (0275)

54 57 2 Copper Chromite FeF 3 (unground)

2 2 425575 0485 (0191) 0648 (0255)

35 6o 2 Milor Blue 1 4555 0399 (0157) 0625 (0246)

56 57 2 Milori Blue 4 425575 0371 (0146) 0528 (0208)

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

a Crawford Bomb Data

Formulation wt rb cms (ins)

At 3115 Ncm2 At 690 Ncm2

0 0and 21 C and 21 C

Batch Total Other Ballistic Oxidizer Blend (500 psia (1000 psia 0

No Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m) Modifier CoarseFine and 70 F) and 700 F)

W 36 88 60 10 15 2 Ferrocene 1 4555 0381 (0150) 0569 (0224)N)

42 60 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 1 4555 0429 (0169) 0594 (0234)

53 57 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 4 425575 0356 (0140) 0490 (0193)

41 60 2 Iron phthshyalocyanine 1$ 4555 0358 (0141) 0490 (0193)

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

the strand burning rates may have been biased to give faster rates by the RAM-225 release agent However the burning rate trends and ranking of the ballistic modifiers do not appear to be biased by the RAM-225

Figure 3-5 shows strand burning rates plotted at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) versus the second ballistic modifier level for the ballistic modifier systems evaluated General conclusions from the study were as follows

(1) The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) and 2 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) gave the fastest burn rate

(2) Increasing the combined level of burning rate modifiers to greater than 4wt of theformulatibn decreased the burn rate

Although the attritor-ground (I m) ferric fluoride (FeF 3) gave a faster burning rate than CU-0202 P at the 1 wt second ballistic modifier level FeF 3 was not selected because it would have contributed HF in the propellant exhaust A preliminary selection of the ballistic modifier system was made for subsequent work The system selected was 2 wt $ ground AD and 2 wt as-received CU-0202 P

Achievement of the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2

(035 ins at 1000 psia) had not been accomplished by simple manipulation of the ballistic modifier type and level Consequently propellant developshyment effort was continued toward this goal along the following approaches

(1) Finer particle size ballisticmodifiers

(2) Finer particle size AN

(3) Greater level of fine AN

(4) Finer particle size AP

(5) Use of potassium perchlorate

Two approaches were evaluated to reduce ballistic modifier particle sizes to sizes smaller than those achievable with a hammer mill They were dry ball milling and attritor grinding The dry ball milling approach was unsuccessful with AD and CU-0202 P because they packed into a hard cake Attritor grinding of AP and FeF 3 to particle sizes smaller than 1 m has been successfully demonstrated within the solid propellant industry This method uses an attritor mill to grind material suspended in Freon between zircoa beads Attritor grinds were successfully made with AD and CU-0202 P and the particle-size reductions accomplished are summarized in Table 3-10

3-30

1016 I1

STRAND BURN RATES POSSIBLY BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

040

EU

04 E

z 0762

FIRST BALLISTIC MODIFIER 200 wt GROUND AD

FeF3 GROUND TO I

030

K c

0 10

uIX FeF 3 (UNGROUND)

Z

0 58

IRONO PHTHALOCYANINE

MILORI BLUE

x FERROCENEFe 20 3

020 zS

ln

0254 I I 0 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SECOND BALLISTIC MODIFIER LEVEL wt

Figure 3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic

Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-31

Table 3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P

Screen Analysis Micromerograph Material 50 wt pt 50 wt pt

Particle Size pm Particle Size pm

AD

As received =575

Attritor ground (21 h) - 44

CU-0202 P

As received 21

Attritor ground (21 h) shy 17

Small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of the smaller ballistic modifier particle sizes on strand burning rates Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-11 General conclusions from this study are as follows

(1) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 1 wt FeF 3 fine ground AN and 9-gm AP reducing the FeF 3 particle size from a coarse as-received to attritor-ground 1 pm material increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2

(1000 psia) from 0594 to 0668 cms (0234 to 0263 ins) (-12)

(2) In an IDP-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P coarse ground AN and 63- AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm did not significantly change strand burning rate

(3) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (0208 to 0219 ins) ( 5)

(4) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (2208 to 0218 ins) (5)

3-32

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-l05 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized 40 IDP

plasticized

1200

-

1200

-

-

1200

-

1200

1200

-

1200

-

1200

-

Aluminum MD 105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground

72 pm Attritor ground

44 gm

200

-

200

-

200 -

200bull

200

-

200

-

-

200

Ferric fluoride As received Attritor ground 1 pm

100 -

-100

- -

- -

-

-

Copper chromite As received 21 pm

Attritor ground 17 pm

- 200

-

200

-

200

-

-

200

200

-

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine Ground Gulf

Oil Fine ground

Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

3150 -

2850

-

3150 -

2850

-

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 1000 9 [Lm

FEM ground 63 pm -

1000

-

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000 1000

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-33

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-105 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 690 Ncm 2 0429 0465 0422 0419 0424 0439 0437 (100 psia) (0169)(0183)(0166) (0165) (0167) (0173) (0172)

At 345 Ncm 2 0594 0668 0467 0475 0528 0556 0554 (500 psia) (0234)(0263)(0184) (0187) (0208) (0219) (0218)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 047 053 014 018 030 033 033

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

In summary reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burning rates for the selected ballistic modifier system

As discussed earlier particle-size control of the unground Gulf Oil AN was a problem because of breakage of the prills during drying and handling A partial approach to this problem was to screen the unground Gulf Oil AN into a selected size range after drying and handling Smallshyscale propellant batches (1000 to 1500 g) were made using Gulf Oil AN and strand burn rate tests were performed on these batches to evaluate

(1) The effect of screened +60 to -32 mesh (250 to 570 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(2) The effect of screened +32 to -16mesh (570 to 1190 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(3) The effect of varying the fraction of AN as fine ground on castability and burn rate

The fine ground AN was ground using a hammer mill with the following settings

9600 rpm hammer speed 80 rpm feed speed

0033-cm (0013-in) screen

3-34

Fisher sub-sieve average particle size for this material was typically 20 pm The fraction of AN as fine ground was limited to less than 55wt to keep propellant processable in the small scale batches (Larger batches typically have better castability) Table 3-12 and Fig 3-6 summarize test results General conclusions from these results were

(1) All batches had poor relative castability

(2) Using unscreened unground Gulf Oil AN (broad particle-size distribution with a significant portion of fines) and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 483 to 542 wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) from 0505 to 0577 cms (0199 to 0227 ins)

(3) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0462 cms (0199 to 0182 ins)

(4) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 300 to 483

wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (100 psia) from 0419 to Q462cms (0165 to 0182 ins)

(5) Changing the coarse fraction from screened +60 to -32 AN to screened +32 to -16 mesh AN reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0404 cms (0165 to 0159 in s)

Changing the type of ammonium nitrate type from Gulf Oil to Monsanto phase stabilized AN eliminated the problem of prill breakage but did not improve castability even with IDP plasticizer as shown by Batch SB-101 in Table 3-12 The slower burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponent with Batch SB-101 compared to Batch SB-64 is due to use of IDP as the plasticizer A small-scale propellant batch SB-102 was made with a coarse ground Monsanto AN to evaluate the effect of this material on castability and burn rate The coarse ground was made using a hammer mill with the following setting 4000 rpm hammer speed 160 rpm feed speed and 032-cm (18-in) screen

Screen analysis indicated this coarse ground AN had an average particle size of approximately 280 pm Propellant castability using this material was excellent but strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was reduced from 0485 to 0442 cms (0191 to 0174 ins) 9 The burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) was not achieved by varying AN type AN particle size or fraction of AN fine ground

The effect of replacing hammer mill ground AP by fluid energy mill ground AP on propellant burning rate was evaluated in a series of five small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) batches Three batches were made using DOA plasticizer and fine ground Gulf AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 55 pm Two batches were made using IDP plasticizer and coarse ground Monsanto AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm Results of this study are shown in Table 3-13 and Fig 3-7

3-35

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized40 IDP

plasticized

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 to 72 gm

Copper chromite as received

im21

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Screened (+60-32) Gulf Oil

Screened (+32 to -16 mesh) Gulf Oil

Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil

Fine ground Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground9 gm

Fraction of AN fine ground (wt )

Relative Castability

SB-64

AN-25

1200

-

200

200

1500

3050

-

-

2850

-

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-75

AN-63

1200

-

200

200

1500

2700

-

--

3200

-

1000

542

Poor

SB-48

AN-40

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

4130

--

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-48A

AN-40A

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

-

4130 -

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-61

AN-53

1200

200

200

1500

-

3050

-

2850

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-101 SB-102

AN-65 AN-65A

- -

1200 1200

200 200

200 200

1500 1500

- -

- -

- -3050 3050

- -

2850 -

2850

1000 1000

483 -

Poor Excellent

3-36

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-64 SB-75 SB-48 SB-48A SB-61 SB-101 SB-102

Formulation No AN-25 AN-63 AN-40 AN-40A AN-53 AN-65 AN-65A

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm 2 0366 0414 0277 0284 0338 0419 0351 (500 psia) (0144)(0163)(0109) (0112) (0133) (0165) (0138)

At 690 Ncm2 0505 0577 0419 0404 0462 0485 0442 (1000 psia) (0199)(0227)(0165) (0159) (0182) (0191) (0174)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 047 049 060() 050 045 022 032

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

These results indicated the following

(1) Using DOA plasticizer fine ground Gulf AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 55 gm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0508 to 0635 cms (0200 to 0250 ins)

(2) Using IDP plasticizer coarse ground Monsanto AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0442 to 0467 cms (0174 to 0184 ins)

(3) Use of the finer (55 to 63 pm) fluid energy ground AP did not increase pressure exponent

Maximum burning rate achieved using fluid energy ground AP was 0635 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0250 ins at 1000 psia) compared to the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

3-37

Table 3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-62 SB-64 SB-66 SB-102 SB-103

Formulation No AN-25 AN-25 AN-56 AN-65A- AN-65B

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 wt DOA plasticized 40 wt IDP plasticized

1200 -

1200 -

1200 -

-

1200 1200

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as

received 21 [m 200 200 200 200 200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 -1500

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil Coarse ground Monsanto

3050

-2850 -

3050

-2850

-

3050

-2850

-

3050 -

2850

3050 -

2850

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 9 1m Fluid energy ground 55 pm Fluid energy ground 63 pm

1000 --

1000 -

-

1000 -

1000 -

-

-

1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Ratesa

cms at 251C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)- 0368 (0145)

0366 (0144)

0457 (0180)

0351 (0138)

0422 (o166)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0508 (0200)

0505 (0199)

064 (025)

0442 (0174)

0467 (0184)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 049 049 048 032 014

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-38

0762 I I I 1 030 11nSTRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY -Z o BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

0E E

COARSE FRACTION HADBROAD SIZE DISTRIBUTION a Z o

WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTION OFFINES

oC 10I0 Ishy

lt 0508 020 w

zz Z 0-COARSE FRACTION WAS 04 n SCREENED TO OBTAIN

NARROW COARSE DISTRIBUTION (+60 -32

o Z

I-MESH) WITH NO FINES

-shy

0254 20

I 30

I 40

I 50

I 60

010 70

FRACTION QF FINE GROUND AN wt

Figure 3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (Gulf AN)

3-39

1270 050

E

U

o 0

I-

C

BURN RATE GOAL o

I-

D Co0

0762 FINE

DOA

GROUND AN AND

PLASTICIZER

030

0D 0o z

V) 0508-

COARSE GROUND AN AND IDP PLASTICIZER 020

0381 I I I I I 015 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) jm

Figure 3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size

ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-40

A small-scale propellant batch SB-65 was made to determine whether the burning rate could be increased significantly by replacing the ground AP by ground potassium perchlorate (KP) Strand burn rate tests were made on this batch and compared to the reference Batch SB-64 as shown in Table 3-14 Strand burning rate at690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was increased from 0505 to 0531 cms (0199 to 0209 ins) 5 but pressure exponent increased from 047 to 065 This approach was dropped because of the minimal increase in burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and the significant increase in pressure exponent

b Combustion Problems One of the problems in using ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer in solid propellants is the incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered specific impulse This problem was studied in the Phase 0 effort and partially resolved by modifying the formulations to include 10 wt AP Other approaches considered on this program to improve aluminum combustion and performance were

(1) Use of aluminum and zirconium mixtures Zirconium has

lower ignition temperature than aluminum

(2) Use of dichromate-coated aluminum powder

(3) Use of aluminummagnesium alloys

(4) Use of plasticizers containing more oxidizer to obtain a more favorable oxidizerfuel ratio

Some increases in propellant burning were also considered possible with several of these approaches Because of limited time and fundsonly the first two approaches were evaluated to any extent with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant Results of these studies are covered in the following discussion

A small-scale propellant batch SB-104 was made using the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum to evaluate the effect on strand burning rates Results of these strand burning rate tests are compared to strand burning rates of reference Batch SB-103 in Table 3-15 The replacement of the uncoated MD-05 aluminum by the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0467 to 0424 cms (0184 to 0167 ins) 9 No motors were loaded and tested to evaluate the effects of this dichromate-coated aluminum on delivered specific impulse

3-41

Table 3-14 Evaluation of Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-64 SB-65

Formulation No AN-25 AN-55

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 gim 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 [Lm 1000 -

Potassium perchlorate hammer mill ground 30 gm - 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0366 (0144) 0340 (013

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0505 (0199) 0531 (0209

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 049 065

Six small-scale propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of AlZr mixtures on propellant castability and strand burning rates Three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt Fe203 The other three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P Zirconium powder level was varied at 0 250 and 500 wt of propellant formulation (0 16 and 13 replacement of Al) Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-16 and Fig 3-8 General conclusions were as follows

3-42

Table 3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-103 SB-104

Formulation No AN-65B AN-65C

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 (uncoated) 1500 -

Aluminum H-5 (dichromate coated) - 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250C

(ins at 771F)

At 345 Ncm 2 (500 psia) 0422 (0166) 0366 (0144)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0467 (0184) 0424 (0167)

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 014 022

3-43

1016 1 1 1 1 040

-rl STRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY E BIASED BY RAM-225 (3 MOLD RELEASE

E

0762 030 0

CD 00 0 0 I---shy

100 CU-0202 P + 200 AD

z 0508 - 020 D

z z

- 100 Fe20 3 + 200 AD

0254 I I I -010 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ZIRCONIUM (REPLACING ALUMINUM) wt

Figure 3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium

ANAPA1HTPB Propellants

3-44

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Ingredients wt

iHTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1250 1000 1500 1250 1000

Zirconium powder --- 250 500 250 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 [m 200 200 200 200 200 200

Fe203 as received 100 100 100

Copper chromite as received --- - --- 100 100 100

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 gm 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)e

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0272 (0107)

0462 (0182)

0376 (0148)

0307 (0121)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0538 (0212)

0452 (0178)

0399 (0157)

0627 (0247)

0546 (0215)

0455 (0179)

3-45

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 390 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 052 058 058 044 054 057

apoor relative castability bUncastable

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

(1) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to make the propellant less castable on the 38-liter (1-gal) batch scale

(2) The 200 wt AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P ballistic modifier system gave faster burning rates than the 200 wt AD and 100 wt Fe203 ballistic modifier system

(3) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to reduce propellant strand burning rate and increase strand pressure exponent

Based on this study and the study of ballistic modifiers a formulation using 500 wt zirconium was selected for s6ale-up and evaluation in BATES motor firings Results of these additional tests are discussed in Section III-H-d and III-H-e

c Proc6ssing Studies Limited funds and time did not allow for any systematic study of processing variables to optimize processing conditions However processing methods and conditions were optimizedbased on experience Some of the specific approaches used for propellant mixing were

(1) Careful selections of order and manner of ingredient addition to disperse and wet solids

(2) Elevated temperatures prior to curative addition to wet and disperse solids and reduced temperatures after curative addition to minimize cure reactions

3-46

(3) Extended vacuum mix times prior to curative addition to

wet and disperse fine- solids

(4) Controlled moisture of ingredients and of the process

The effects of AN particle sizes and fraction of AN fine ground on propellant castability were discussed in conjunction with the burning rate studies

Antioxidants are commonly used with the R-45 HTPB binder to improve propellant pot life and aging stability The combination of UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-p-phenylene diamine) and DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone) appears to give synergistic effects and is very effective in extending pot life Protech 2002 (UTC proprietary metalshydeactivating antioxidant) and others of the Protech series have the additional advantage of being metal scavengers They tie up the transishytion metals that catalyze radical oxidations Four small-scale propellant batches were made initially to evaluate these pot-life extenders Table 3-17 summarizes results of this initial study The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH gave some improvement in propellant castability with no significant effect on propellant burning rate No improvement in propellant castability was observed with use of the Protech 2002 The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH was selected as the pot-life extender system to be used for additional evaluation

DOA was chosen initially as the plasticizer for use with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant It is one of the most commonly used plasticizers and its low cost is an advantage IDP has a lower viscosity and freezing point than DOA but is more costly than DOA Six smallshyscale propellant batches were made and tested to compare the two plasticizers DOA and IDP under the following three conditions

(1) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level without pot-life extenders

(2) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

(3) At the 50 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

Results of the study are summarized in Table 3-18 General conclusions from the study were

(1) The IDP consistently gave better castability than the DOA

(2) Use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH improved castability with both of the plasticizers DOA and IDP

(3) No major improvement in castability was observed by increasing the plasticizer in binder level from 40 to 50 wt

3-47

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1192 1177 1185

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl-hydroquinone) - 00 004 -

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshyphenylene diamine) -

Protech 2002 (UTC

proprietary antioxidant) -

004

-

004

015

-

015

Aluminum MD-105 1000 1000 1000 1000

Zirconium powder 500 500 500 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63ttxz 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm 1000 1000 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-48

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at

0770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 0323 0295 0282 0269 (500 psia) (0127) (0116) (0111) (0106)

At 690 Ncm 2 0475 0467 0483 0460 (1000 psia) (0187) (0184) (0190) (0181)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 057 066 078 078

aUncastable bpoor castability

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

The effect of plasticizer type on propellant burning rate was not conshyclusively determined from this study Two out of the three cases indicated that the IDP gave slower strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) To resolve this question two additional propellant batches SB-100 and SB-101 were made where the strand burn rate test results could not possibly be biased by the RAM-225 release agent The batches were formulated to have 40 wt plasticizer in binder and to use the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH Results of tests on these two batches are shown in Table 3-19 These results indicated the change from DOA to IDP plasticizer reduced the strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0544 to 0485 cms (0214 to 0191 ins) ( 11)

Based on results of these processing studies the following propellant selections were made for additional evaluation in scale-up batches and motor tests

(1) DOA plasticizer

(2) 40 wt plasticizer in binder level

(3) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH each at the 004 wt level

3-49

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

Formulation No AN-57a AN-58b AN-25 0 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 592 592 720 720 712 712

DTBH (25 dishytertiary butyl hydroquinone) 004 004 - - 004 004

UOP-36 (N-phenylshyN-cyclohexylshyP-phenylene diamine) 004 004 - - 004 004

DOA 600 - 480 - 480 -

IDP - 600 - 480- - 480

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 Am 200 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 [Lm 200 200 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate screened ungroundGulf Oil +60 -32 mesh 2700 2700 - - - -

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil - - 3050 3050 2700 2700

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 3200 3200 2850 2850 3200 3200

Ammonium perchloshyrate hammer mill ground 9 jim - - 1000 1000 1000 1000

3-50

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ammonium perabloshyrate fluid energy mill ground 55 pm

Total

Strand Burning Ratesd cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2 (500 to 1000 psia)

aGood castability

SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

AN-57a AN-58b AN-250 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

1000 1000 -

10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

0376 0371 0366 0478 0414 0353 (0148) (0146) (0144) (0188) (0163) (0139)

0572 0533 0505 0658 0577 0500 (0225) (0210) (0199) (0259) (0227) (0197)

059 053 047 046 049 048

bExcellent castability 0Poor castability dpossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-51

Table 3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-100

-AN-25a

SB-101

AN-65b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 712 712

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshy

P-phenylene diamine)

004

04

004

004

DOA 48o -

IDP - 480

Aluminum IAD-I05 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 72 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm

Total 1000

10000 1000

10000

Strand burning rates cms at 25degC (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

0406 (0160)

0544 (0214)

0419 (0165)

0485 (0191)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

041 022

apoor castability bFair castability

3-52

Results of these additional tests are discussed in sections on scale-up and ballistic evaluation

d Scale-up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Two propellant formulations were selected for evaluation in scale-up batches [946 liters 104 to 113 kg (25gal 230 to 250 lb)] and motor tests Formulation AN-25 was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum and 4 wt ballistic modifier Formulation AN-59 was identical except one-third of the aluminum (5 wt of the propellant formulation) was replaced by zirconium powder Details of the formulations are shownin Table 3-20 Both formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section e The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples from each batch

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rate

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-20 General conclusions from these tests were as follows

(1) The end-of-mix viscosities and pot lives on both batches were excellent There was no degradation of castability with zirconium as suggested by the small-scale batch studies

(2) Strand burning rates were slightly faster at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) for the formulation with zirconium The smallshyscale studies had suggested slower burning rates for formulashytions containing zirconium

(3) Both formulations had burning rateswhich were well below the burning rate goal 0478 and 0513 cms at 690 Ncm2

(0188 and 0202 ins at 1000 psia) versus goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(4) Card gap tests on both formulations were negative at 0 cards and therefore met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Density of the propellant containing zirconium was slightly higher than the propellant containing just aluminum as expected

3-53

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

Propellant Type Batch Number Formulation Number Batch Size kg (ib)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized)

UOP-36

DTBH

Ammonium dichromate grodnd 63 pm

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Aluminum powder

Zirconium powder

Ammonium nitrate Gulf Oil unground Gulf Oil fine ground

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 pm

Total

Brookfield apparent viscosities kP at 0C (OF)

Time after curative addition

07 h (end-of-mix) 13 h 34 h

Strand burning rates at 251C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) At 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

ANAPAlHTPB SB-73 AN-25

113 (250)

1192

004

004

200

200

1500

-

3050 2850

1000

10000

60 at 55 (130) 73 at 57 (135) 95 at 55 (130)

0257 (0101) 0373 (0147) 0462 (0182) 0478 (0188)

3-54

ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74 AN-59

104 (230)

1192

004

004

200

200

1000

500

3050 2850

1000

10000

41 at-57 (-135) 50 at-57 (-135)

0224 (0088) 0353 (0139) 0437 (0172) 0513 (0292)

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations (Continuation 1)

Propellant Type ANAPAlHTPB ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74Batch Number SB-73

Formulation Number AN-25 AN-59 Batch Size kg (ib) 113 (250) 104 (230)

Card Gap Tests 10 negative 10 negative at 0 cards at 0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) 16497 16630 gcm3 (lbin 3 ) (00596) (00601)

JANNAF Uniaxial properties Sm Ncm 2 (psi) 90 (130) 88 (127) era 47 48

Sb Ncm2

eb (psi) 90 (130)

47 88 (127)

48

(6) JANNAF uniaxial properties for both batches were comparable

Maximum stress Sm was in the range of 88 to 90 Ncm2

(127 to 130 psi) and strain at maximum stress em was in

the range of 47 to 48 The low strain values are adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

e Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlHTPB System (3 HCl in

Exhaust) The five candidate alternate propellants listed and defined

in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were all scaled up to processing of 113-kg (250-1b)

batches loaded into BATES motors and test fired The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions using nozzles manufactured

and cut to actual expansion ratios of 716 Both chamber pressure and thrust were measured The tests were conducted at ambient temperature

conditions with propellant charges conditioned to 250C (770F) The

measured sea level Isp swas corrected to a vacuum Isp by simply adding the

back-pressure correction The following equations define the pertinent ballistic parameters

PC _f tEWAT Pc Edttb

J t at 075 Pc init

3-55

-- t EWA T F = dt tF=ftat 075 PC initFtt

Ab gPc KN= - = -

At crp

-- f ta C g At PdtWp g PcKN rp

It Isp ms = shywip

fta itr Fdt

to

PaAeIsp vac ms =Isp MS + -

Wp expended

(ta + tb)2

Figure 3-9 shows the burning rate of the formulation number AN-25 the ANAPAlHTPB propellant system with 10 AP Table 3-21 is a tabulashytion of theBATES motor test data from the test firings of batch number SB-74 of formulation AN-25

f Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlZrHTPB BATES motors were also loaded and tested with the modified ANAPAlHTPB formulation

containing 5 Zr powder a 15-pm powder The burning rates determined in BATES motors are shown in Fig 3-10 and the ballistic data from the BATES motors tests are tabulated in Table 3-22

3-56

PRESSURE psic 4

102 8 103 2 4 6 102 4 6 1524 i 1 1 1 6

A BATES MOTOR DATA 1016 4

n 0278

E --U 0508 -

2

KN shy

(D 0254 - 1000 1o0 1

z 0203- 800- 88

z

0152 - 600 6

0102 - -400 4

0051 I 200 2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73

3-57

2540 2032

1524

102

-

2 4

PRESSURE

6 103

I

psa

2 4 6 104 10

BATES MOTOR DATA 6

1016 n 0277 4

0508 2

O

S0254-0229 0152 -

KN

1000 800600600

I0-866

z

a

6102 - 400 4

0051 I I I 1 200 1 2

69

Fig 3-10

138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74

3-58

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test data

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

W loaded kg (lb)

Wp expended kg (lb)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-sem2 (lb-s)

E-1453 E-1455

9-15-75 9-23-75

SB-732 SB-733

3376 3109 (1329) (1224)

3393 3119 (1336) (1228)

25225 2525 p(55611) (5567) 25028 2501

(55177) (5513)

9922 9904

3840 3855 (1512) (15178)

811 742

881 797

425 576 (616) (835)

493 634 (715) (919)

459 590 (666) (856)

38844 45878 (56339) (66541)

3-59

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 PropellantTable 3-21 (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s)

p (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia)

r at PC cms

(ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s

(Ib-s)

F (JF dttb)6 N (lb)

It (f F dt) (ta)

N-s (lbrs)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

In vac ins N-skg M

E-1455E-1453

4723240196 (68504)(58300)

61834790 (8968)(69147)

05180483 (0190) (02o4)

534445332

528544739

1432 1424 (4700) (4673)

948953

5174650665 (11633)(11390)

6973461910 (15677)(13918)

53745852257 (120826)(11748)

212844207165 (21704)(21125)

88828820

228132226534 (2310) (23263)

3-60

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids Aluminum Oxidizer

88 15 AP-1O AN-59 HMX 0

Run No E-1453 E-1455

Expansion ratio 688 700

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test date

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

Wp loaded kg (ib)

Wp expended kg (ib)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

-E-1454 E-1456

9-18-75 9-26-75

SB-741 SB-742

3287 3119 (1294) (1228)

3307 3142 (1302) (1237)

2561 2561 (5647) (5646)2534 2528

(5586) (5574)

9891 9872

3835 38298 (1510) (15078)

3-61

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-IO AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s)

fP dt (ta) N-scm (lb-s)

Pc (f P dttb)

Ncm2 (psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

E-1454 E-1456

769 740

824 784

465 552 (675) (800)

541 620 (785) (899)

540 614 1 (783) (890)

40311 4482C (58467) (6500

41806 46000 (60634) (66718)

5242 6057 (7603) (8785)

0498 0518 (0196) (0204)

478 531

4726 523

13940 14319 (45736) (46977)

928 9527

3-62

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb)N (lb)

it (fF dt) (ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s-)

Isp efficiency

lsi vac ms N-skg(s22055

Expansion ratio

E-1454 E-1456

50189 50576 (11283) (11370)

6526 6835 (1467) (15365)

52044 52044 (11700) (11770)

20319 20447 (2072) (2085)

8598 865

22016

(2249) (2245)

696 694

3-63

8 ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (gt3 Wt HCl in Exhaust)

The propellant development work accomplished on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to this point indicated that the burn rate goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with the constraint of lt3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was probably not achievable Development work was continued on this propellant with the HC1 constraint removed but held to a minimum This section discusses that propellant development effort

a Burning Rate Studies Four small-scale batches (1500 g) were made varying the FEM AP (fluid energy mill-ground ammonium perchlorate) level from 10 to 30 wt The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground AD and 2 wt CU-0202 P was used End-of-mix viscosities pot life and cured strand burning rates were measured on each batch Objective of this work was to determine what FEM AP level was needed

to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) The formulations and test results are shown in Table 3-23and Fig 3-11 These results lead to the following conclusions

(1) The strand burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) is achievable using 18 wt FEM AP A motor burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) may require a slightly higher FEM AP level

(2) End-of-mix viscosities werein the range of 88 to152 kP at 520C (125 0 F) for FEM AP levels ranging from 10 to 20 wt Casting lives for these batches were 2_35 h at

520C (125 0F)

(3) Using FEM AP and increasing the AP level from 10wt to 18-wt increases HCI in the exhaust from 29 to =50

Thermoballistic calculations indicated that reducing the ballistic modifier level to 2 wt by elimination of the AD increased theoretical Isp by 196 N-skg (2 s) Elimination of the AD was desirable from other considerations Studies had shown that it crosslinks the R-45 prepolymer (probably through the double bond) and degrades propellant castability and physical properties Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made varying the FEM AP level over the range of 15 to 25 wt level Only 2 wt as received CU-0202 P was used as ballistic modifier End-of-mix viscosities and-cured strand burning rates were measured

Results of this study are shown in Table 3-24 and Fig 3-11 General conclusions from this work were

(1) Approximately 20 wt FEM AP is required to meet the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosities were in the range of 18 to 19 kP at 520C (1250F)

3-64

1 1 0902286

0802032 - 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 200

AD + 200 CU-0202 P

KZ 1778 690 Ncm2 (1000 psa) -070 E 200CU-0202 P

0 -060 O 1524

lt I- 345 Ncm

2 (500 psa) 200 AD 200CU-0202 P

0501270

z z

040 D2 1016 co

z z

0762- 030n

345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 200 CU-0202 P 0200508 -

I I 0100254 I I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FEM AP LEVEL wt

Fig 3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

3-65

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder 40 DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground (72 im)

Copper chromite as received (21 1im)

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto unground

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto fine grind

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy ground (63 tim)

SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

3050 3050 3050 -3050

2850 2350 1850 850

1000 1500 2000 3000

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier) (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

Formulation No AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

Brookfield Viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) kPh after CA

End-of-mix -152067 112062 88038 2806 LU

Pot life 18417 26418 22414 shy25627 3228 27224 3237 4038 40834

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0424 (0167) 0536 (0211) 0739 (0291) 1461 (0575) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0528 (0208) 0693 (0273) 1067 (0420) 2136 (0841)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 - 038 051 052

CA = curative addition

Table 3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (2 Wt Ballistip Modifier)

Batch No Formulation No

Ingredientswt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate

FEM ground 63 Pm

Brookfield End-of-Mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F)

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-135 AN-69

1200

1500

200

3050

2550

1500

10000

19

0437 (0172)

0660 (0260)

058

SB-136 SB-137 AN-70 AN-71

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

3050 3050

1550 2050

2500 2000

10000 10006

18

0884 (0348) 0615 (0242)

0242 (0489) 0930 (0366)

051 060

3-68

Based on these results formulation AN-71 with 2 wt as received CUshy0202 P and 20 wt FEM AP was selected for additional evaluation with

a scale-up batch and motor tests

b Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation Formulation AN-71 was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch [946 liter (25 gal) 113 kg (250 lb)] and motor tests It was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum 20 wt FEM AP and 2 wt ballistic modifier Details of the formulation are shownin Table 3-25 Formulation AN-71 was successfully mixed in the 946-liter (25-gal) mixer and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section III-H-8-c and d Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests

were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are also summarized in Table 3-25 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The propellant end-of-mix viscosity was 28 kP at 530C (127degF) which is high but acceptable Pot life was about 2 hours

(2) The strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was 0922 cms (0363 ins) which met the goal of 089 cms at

690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(3) Strand pressure exponent was 061 Motor pressure exponents are typically lower than strand pressure exponents The generally high pressure exponent is associated with the low ballistic modifier level (2 wt CU-0202 P) and the

fine (FEM) AP

(4) Card gap tests were negative at 0 cards Therefore they met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) The propellant density and JANNAF uniaxial properties obtained were typical of properties obtainedwith the ANAPAlHTPB propellant Measured density was 16497 gcm3 at 250C (00596 lbin3 at 770 F) Sm was 89 Ncm2 (129 psi) with an em of 37 The low strain values were adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

3-69

Table 3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation

ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Type Batch Number SB-140 Formulation No AN-71

113 kg (250 lb)Batch Size

Formulation wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized) 1192 004UOP-36 004DTBH

Copper Chromite as received 21 Am 200 Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 Ammonium nitrate

Monsanto unground 3050 Monsanto fine ground 2050

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 2000

Total 10000

Brookfield Apparent Viscosities kP at 0C (OF) Time after curative addition

09 h (end-of-mix) 28 at 53 (127) 19 h 52 at 52 (125) 29 h 73 at 52 (125)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins) At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) 0445 (0175) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0612 (0241) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) 0785 (0309) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0922 (0363)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 061 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests Negative at

0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) gcm3 (lbin 3) 16497 (00596)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties Sm Ncm2 (psi) 89 (129) em 37

89 (129)Sb Ncm2 (psi)eb 37

3-70

c Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAIHTPB (gt3 HCI in Exhaust)

As has been discussed the effects on this candidate propellant system

resulting from increasing the AP content were studied A formulation

with 20 AP and burning rate modifier reduced to 2 met the burning The burningrate and Isp goal This formulation is identified as AN-71

rates and measured Isp are shown in Fig 3-12 and Table 3-26 respectively

d Summary One ANAPAlHTPB propellant formulation was

developed that conformed to the program constraints for lt3 wt HCl

in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards

classification This formulation AN-25 had a motor burning rate

-of only 053 cms at 690 Ncm2 (021 ins at 1000 psia) and a

= 716 of only 2285 N-skg (233 s) A maximumdelivered vacuum Ip E

strand burning rate of only 064 cms at 690 Ncm2 (025 ins at

1000 psia) (unbiased by RAM-225 release agent) was achieved within

the program constraints with a small-scale batch using fluid energy

Since the development work indicated thatmillground (55 [m) AP

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1300 psia)

was probably not achievable with the constraint of _3 wt HI in the

propellant exhaust development work was continued with this constraint

removed but held to a minimum Formulation AN-71 was developed to

This formulation used only 200 meet the program goals on that basis

wt copper chromite as ballistic modifier and 2000 wt fluid energy

It had a motor burning rate of 097 cms atmill ground (63 gim) AP 1000 psia) and a delivered vacuum I E = 716690 Ncm2 (038 ins at

of 2403 N-skg (245 s) Table 3-27 summarizes and compares te properties

of these two formulations versus the program goals

The following summarizes the status of the ANAPAlHTPB propellant

development

(1) The basic ANAPA1HTPB propellat ip the second most

promising candidate of the three basic propellants

to good(2) Demonstrated that a few of AP is essential

aluminum combustion

of AP is required to meet(3) Demonstrated that more than 10

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins

at 1000 psia)

(4) Formulation AN-71 with 20 wt AP met the program goals for

burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [097 cms (038 ins)

achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] and delivered

= 716 [2403 N-skg (245 s) achieved versusvacuum Is at E

goal of 21403 N-skg (245 s)] but did not meet the goal

for pressure exponent (048 achieved versus goal of K042)

It conformed to the constraint for a Class 2 propellant

but did not conform to the constraint for lt_3 wt HUl in

the propellant exhaust

3-71

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellent

Solids 88 Alumindm 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX ---

Run No E-1484

Test Date 6-10-76

BatchChg No SB-1401

Nozzle Dt init cm (in) 48636 (19148)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 46380 (1826)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3025 (6670)

Wp expended kg(ib) 3025 (6668)

Wt expended 9997

Web thickness cm (in) 4648 (1830)

tb s 698

ta s 730

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 313 (454)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 380 (551)

Pc final Ncm 2 (psia) 317 (460)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24506 (355435)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24952 (3619)

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 351 (509) (psia)

r at cCms (ins) 0665 (0262)

KN initial 2103

KN average 21987

C ms (fts) 14604 (47914)

C efficiency 972

3-72

-E-1491

6-25-76

SB-1402

48636 (19148)

46355 (1825)

3016 (6650)

3003 (6621)

9956

4630 (1823)

654

705

317 (460)

421 (610)

238 (345)

24525 (355710)

24948 (36184)

3750 (5439)

0709 (0279)

2103

-21998

14638 (48026)

975

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX --shy

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 6248797 (14o4786) 6281131 (1412055)

F (fF dttb) N (lb) 895249 (20126) 960415 (21591)

it (fF dt for ta) 6356996 (142911) 6382382(1434817)

N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 210117 (21426) 215588 (21576)

Isp efficiency 9226 9256

Isp vac ms (corr) 240214 (24495) 241008 (24576)

Expansion ratio 716 726

(5) Formulation AN-25 with 10 wt AP met the program goal for presshysure exponent (028 achieved versus goal of lt042) but did not

meet the goals for burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [053 cms (021 ins) achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] dr for delivered vacuum I eE = 716 [2285 N-skg (233 s) achieved versus goal of gt2403 N-skg (245 s)] It conformed to the constraints for a Class 2 propellant and gt3 wt hCl in the propellant exhaust

(6) Demonstrated good castability and a pot life greater than

34 hours for formulation AN-25

(7) Demonstrated acceptable castability for formulation AN-71

(8) Successfully loaded and test fired 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with both formulations

(9) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

9 ANHMXAIHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished in the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined pershyformance goals within the constraints specified One of the advantages of this basic propellant is that it contains no AP and consequently generates no HCl in the exhaust However typical formulations using

3-73

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104

1524 I 1 1 6

1016 -A BATES MOTOR DATA 4

0 5x 10 MOTOR DATA 0508 - 2

E U

n =048 KN

0254 1-- 000 10 o 0203 800-6L 8

Z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0124 - 400 4 D

0051 200 2

I 10-20025 I1 I I

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm 2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140

3-74

Table 3-27 ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Achieved Properties vs Goals

Achieved Value

SB-140SB-73 AN-71AN-25-Alternate Propellant

Goal (10 wt- AP) (20 wt AP)Property

BATES motor Burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

089 (035) 053 (021) 097 (038)acms (ins)

BATES motor lt042 028pressure exponent

-Delivered vacuum sn

E 716 N-skg (s) 2403 (2245) 2285 (233) 2403 (245)

lt3 30 631C1 in exhaust

Meets card gap yes Required yesrequirement for Class 2 (negative (negative

at 0 cards)at 0 cards)

a45-kg (10-1b) motor test data

7) about to 20 wt HMX have theoretical Isp values

(vacuum and E 15 196 N-skg (2 s) less than comparable ANHNXAP(10)AlHTPB

formulations

Reduction in program funds and scope limited development effort on

this basic propellant to only four exploratory mixes

Two 10-g hand mixes one uncured and one a Safety Tests cured were made of formulations with 20 wt Class

A HMX to initially -Impact

check material compatibility and propellant safety properties

tests (DSC-differential scanning calorimeter) were made on both mixes

The formulations and results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-28

For comparison purposes these same safety tests were made on propellant

samples of the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-B-1123) Table 3-29

compares the safety properties of the candidate ANHMXAlHTPB formulation

AN-52 with the safety properties of PBAN baseline formulation TP-H-1123

These tests indicated

3-75

Table 3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No

Formulation No

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45 Alrosperse Premix DOA (4o)

Aluminum Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm Copper chromite as received Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 pm HMX Type II Class A

(DOA coated) Ammonium nitrate ground Ammonium nitrate unground

(+60 -32 mesh screened fraction) IPDI

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight 0 fire 50 fire

Electrostatic Sensitivity J

Thermal Stability (DSC - 10OCmin heating rate)

SB-59 SB-60

AN-51 (uncured) AN-52

1108 1108

1500 1500 200 200 200 200 7

2020 2020 3410 3410

1500 1500 none shy 062 9938 10000

4318 (17 )a 4572 (18) 4826 (19 )a 508 (20)

gt128 gt128

No exotherm No exotherm over tempera- over temperashyture range 21 ture range 21 to 1490c (70 to 1490c (70

to 3000 F) to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

3-76

Table 3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAiHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-52)

Formulation TP-H-1123 (PBAN Baseline)

Batch No SB-77

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400

HTPB binder

Aluminum 1600

Ballistic modifiers 040

Ammonium perchlorate 6960

Ammonium nitrate

HMX Type II Class A

Impact sensitivity cm (in) for 18 kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4318 (18) 50 fire 4953 (195)

Electrostatic sensitivity J gt128

Thermal stability (DSC - 100 Cmin heating rate) No exotherm

over temperature range 21 to -1490c (70tto 3000F)

DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

AN-52

SB-60

1190

1500

400

4910

2000

4572 (18) 508 (20)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000F)

3-77

(1) Formulation AN-52 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123)

(2) DSC data suggested that thermal stability of the 20 wt HMX propellant and gross material compatibility over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 300 0F) were adequate

(3) Formulations with up to 20 wt HMX could be safely processed inthe JPL ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

b Burning Rate Studies Two small-scale batches (1000 g) were made varying the level of Class A HMX from 1500 to 2000 wt Strand burn rate tests were made on cured propellant from both batches The formulations and results of strand burn rate tests are shown in Table 3-30 Strand burning rates increased from 0414 to 0450 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0163 to 0177 ins at 1000 psia) with the 1500 to 2000 wt increase in Class A HMX while the strand pressure exponent remained constant at 042 Although the strand pressure exponent met the performance goal of lt042 the burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)were well below the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) These very slow burn rates suggest that the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant may not be a viable candidate for achieving program goals

c Hazard Classification Card gap samples were cast cured and tested from the two batches shownin Table 3-30 Results of the card gap tests indicated positive tests at 35 and 70 cards on both batches Therefore these formulations with 15 and 20 wt Class A HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant hazard classification one of the major constraints Propellant development work on the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant was terminated at this point

d Summary The following summarizes the status of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant development

(1) Demonstrated that 1500 and 2000 wt_ Class A HMX resulted in Class 7 propellants

(2) Achieved a strand burning rate of 0450 cms (0177 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and a strand pressure exponent of 042 with a formulation containing 2000 wt Class A HMX

(3) Demonstrated good castability of the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant

(4) Discontinued development of this basic propellant as a result of reduction in funds

3-78

Table 3-30 ANHM4XHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-82A (HMX)

ANH-1

SB-81

ANH-1

(HMX)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class A 1500 2000

Ammonium nitrate 5400 4900

Card gap tests

0 cards 35 cards 70 cards

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

1 positive 2 positive

0-310 (0122) 0414 (0163)

042

1 positive 2 positive

0340 (0134) 0450 (0177)

042

3-79

10 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work-accompshylished on the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraints specified The constraint of lt_3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was accomplished by limiting the AP level in the formulation to10 wt The constraint of a Class 2 propellant hazard classification was primarily accomplished by limiting the HMX Class (particle size) and level to meet the card gap requireshyments for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards)

a Safety Tests Safety tests were performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes containing 20 wt Class A HMX to check material compatishybility and safety properties The formulations and the test results are shown in Table 3-31 As in the case of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant these safety tests results were compared to similar safety test results on the PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123) Table 3-32 shows this comparison General conclusions were

(1) Formulation AN-50 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as TP-H-1123

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F) as determined by the DSC

(3) Formulations with-up to 20 wt HMX could besafely proshycessed in the JPL-ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

Safety tests were also performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes to check material capability and propellant safety properties when the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were incorporated into ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellants Selected level for both UOP-36 and DTBH was 004 wt Impact sensitivity electrostatic sensitivity and thermal stability (DSC) tests were made on samples from the mix with the pot-life extendshyers SB-127 and on samples from a control mix without the pot-life extenders SB-126 The formulations and test results were shown in Table 3-33 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The mix with the pot-life extenders had essentially the same impact sensitivity and electrostatic sensitivity as the control mix

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000 F) (DSC)

b Burning Rate Studies Six small-scale batches were made varying HMX particle size at two sizes Class A ( 149 lm) and Class E (15 to 20 gim) and HMX level at three levels 10 15 and 20 wt Objective of this study was to determine the effects of HMX particle

3-80

Table 3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No SB-57 (uncured)

Formulation No AN-49

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45

Alrosperse Premix 1108

DOA (40)

Aluminum 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm 200

Copper chromite as received 200

Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 Jm 1000

HMX Type II Class A (1 DOA coated) 2020

Ammonium nitrate ground 3910

IPDI none

9938

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for

18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 Fire 381 (15)a

50 Fire 43-18 (17 )a

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over (DSC at 10degCmin heating temperature range rate) 21 to 1490C

(70 to 3000 F)

SB-58

AN-50

1108

1500

200

200

1000

2020

3910

062

10000

5334 (21)

5715 (225)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples

3-81

Table 3-32 -Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate--ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-50)

Formulation TP-H-1123 AN-50

(PANbaseline)

Batch Number SB-77 SB-58

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400 ---

HTPB binder --- 1190

Aluminum 1600 1500

Ballistic modifiers 040 400

Ammonium perchlorate 6960 1000

Ammonium nitrate --- 3910

HMX Type II Class A --- 2000

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4572 (18) 5334 (21)

50 fire 4953 (195) 5715 (225)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability (DSC at 100Cmin heating No exotherm over No exotherm-over rate) temperature rangeru temperature range

21 to 1490C 21 to 149 0 Cshy(70 to 3000 F) (70 to 3000 F)

size and level on propellant hazard classification (card gap tests) strand burningrates and relative castability Tests were performed on- samples from each of these batches and the results are summarized in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 alongwith-the formulations Results of the card gap tests and relative castability are discussed in the hazards classification and processing sections respectively The strand burn- ing rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) were plotted versus HMX level in Fig 3-13 forthe two different HMXparticle sizes Class A and Class E Although the strand burning rates are biased to faster values by the

3-82

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests

Formulations for 10-g Hand Mixes

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate attritor ground (44 pm)

Copper chromite attritor

ground (17 Pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (63 gm)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-Nshycyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine)

DTBH (ditertiary butyl hydroquinone)

Safety Tests (Cured Propellant)

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight)

0 Fire

50 Fire

SB-126 SB-127

ANH-16A (Control) ANH-30

1200 1192

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1300 1300

100 1000

004

0-04

10000 10000

43 (17) 57 (19)

52 (205) 51 (20)

3-83

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests (Continuation 1)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over No exotherm over

(DSC at 10degCmin heating rate)

temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000F)

temperature range 21 to 149 0C (70 to 3000F)

RAM-225 release agent the relative ranking and trends are believed to be valid General conclusions from these rankings and trends are as follows

(1) The fine particle size HMX Class E (15-20 pm) gave signifishycantly faster burning rates than the coarse Class A (=149 pm) HMX

(2) The fine particle size HMX Class E gave lower pressure exponent than the coarse Class E HMX

(3) Strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) increased significantly with HMX level to about 15 wt and tended to level in the 15 to 20 wt range

From burning rate considerations the fine size Class E HMX was preferred because it gave faster burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponents Formulation ANH-5A [Batch SB-85A(HMX)] was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed in Sections III-H-10-f and III-H-10-g on Scale-up and Ballistic Evaluation

Cured propellant strands to this point in the program had been prepared by casting the uncured propellant into molds which formed individual strands and which had been coated with RAM-225 release agent Test data from the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings(from Batch SB-89 (first scale-up batch) revealed a large discrepancy between strand burn rates and the 45-kg (10-1b) motor burn rates An investigation of this discrepshyancy revealed that the RAM-225 was the cause Strands were prepared in5 the following three ways and tested for comparison

(1) Strands cured in the RAM-225 release molds and restricted

(2) Strands cut from a solid block of cured propellant and restricted

(3) Strands cut from a block of cured propellant then given light spray coat of RAM-225 dried in 710 C (1600F) oven then restricted

3-84

Table 3-34 ANH-MXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class A

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchlorate

ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates2

at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500to 1000 psia)

SB-88

ANH-8

1200

1500

200

200

1000

4900

1000

2 negative

1 negative

0480(0189)a

6 65 (0 2 62 )a0

048

SB-83 SB-84

ANH-3 NH-4

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1500 2000

4400 3900

1000 1000

-

1 positive 1 positive

2 positive 2 positive

0 622 (0 245 )a 05 41(02 13 )a

0826 (0 32 5)a 0 7 47 (02 94 )a

041 047

3-85

Table 3-34 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) (Continuation 1)

Shore A Hardness (3 s) 81 80 82

Relative Castability Good Good Good

aStrands were cast into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

Results of the tests are summarized in Table 3-36 and Fig 3-14 Very good agreement was obtained between the burn rate of strands cured in the RAM-225 release mold and strands cut from a cured block of propelshy

lant and then sprayed with RAM-225 However both these sets of burn

rates were erroneously fast compared to the 5 x 10 motor burn rates In contrast the strand burn rates obtained from cut strands which were

not treated with RAM-225 were much slower and agreed fairly well with motor data

A brief investigation was made to determine the composition of RAM-225 and whether it could be used as an improved ballistic modifier in the propellant formulation Chemical analysis of RAM-225 indicated

that it is a high molecular weight silicone oil in the solvents isopropashynol and heptane Two 38-liter (1-gal) batches of propellant were made with 015 wt dimethyl silicone (1000 cS) One batch had 400 wt mixed ballistic modifiers (ammonium dichromate and copper chromite) and

the other batch had 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier Both batches made with the 015 wt dimethyl silicone showed signs of viscosity buildup even before curative addition The batch with the 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier became too viscous to process to completion Tests results on the successfully completed batch with 015 wt dimethshyyl silicon [Batch SB-107 (HMX)] are shown in Table 3-37 Test results from Batch SB-108 (HMX) are also included in this table for comparative purposes General conclusions from these tests are as follows

(1) No significant changes in strand burning rates were observed due to addition of 015 wt dimethyl silicone

(2) The dimethyl silicone caused rapid propellant viscosity buildup even before curative addition and therefore the material appears impractical from propellant processing considerations

A series of six small-scale (1000 g) batches was made with the specific objectives of increasing propellant burn rate improving castashybility and improving burn rate reproducibility US Agri-Chemicals (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent was used for all six batches The following variables were evaluated

3-86

0

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations --HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchloshyrate ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

32 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770 F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-87 SB-85A SB-86

ANH-7 ANH-5A ANH-6

1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500

200 200 200

200 200 200

1000 1500 2000

4900 4400 3900

1000 1000 1000

2 neg -

1 neg

I neg 2 neg 1 pos

1 pos

(500 psia) 0 767 (0 302 )a 0 930 (0 366 )a 0912(0359)a

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0970(0382)a 1105 (0 43 5 )a 1 128 (0444 )a

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2

(500to 1000 psia) 033 024 031

3-87

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation

(Class E HMX) (Continuation 1)

89 88Shore A Hardness (3 s) 90

Relative Castability Fair Fair Marginal

aStrands were east into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

(1) Ammonium nitrate particle size Replacement of part or all of the large unground prills by a coarse-ground ammor nitrate

(2) Plasticizer type Replacement of DOA (dioctyl adipate) by IDP (isodecyl pelargonate)

Relative castability and strand burn rates were measured on each batch Results of this study are summarized in Tables 3-38 and 3-39 and Fig 3-15 General conclusions regarding propellant burn rates from the study were as follows

(1) Replacement of the very large unground ammonium nitrate prills by coarsely ground ammonium nitrate reduced propelshy

lant burning rate

(2) Replacement of DOA by IDP slightly reduced propellant burnshying rate (Q2)

(3) Strand pressure exponents were typically 036 or less well within the goal of lt042

(4) The US Agri-Chemical (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent handled without caking and had less tendshyency to size reduce during handling tand mixing These

factors should improve propellant burn rate reproducibility

The reduction in burn rate by replacement of unground prills with coarseshyly ground AN was unexpected and inconsistent with usual solid propellant experience Usually propellant burn rate increases with increasing fractions of ground oxidizer The mechanism for this unusual response has not been identified to date Formulation ANH-12 Batch SB-94 (HMX)

had the fastest burn rate 0836 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0329 ins at 1000 psia) consistent with acceptable castability Therefore it was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of replacing bamer mill ground AP with the finer fluid energy mill (FEM) ground AP on propellant properties Micromerograph analysis

3-88

270I 050-K STRAND BURN RATES BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

CLASSE HMXZ 1016 040 0 0ashy10

7CLASS AHMX 0762 - 030 Z

z nD 2

z - -

Ce 0508 -020 1 F-I) 0 5 10 15 20

HMX wt

Fig 3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-89

Table 3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)

Strand Burning Rate cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

Strands cured Strands cut 5 x 10 motor Strands cut in RAM-225 from cured firings from cured

Pressure released mold block of block of Ncm 2 (psia) propellant propellant

sprayed with RAMshy225 dried and tested

690 (1000) 0991 (0390) 0721 (0284) 0660 (0260) 0983 (0387)

517 (750) 0876 (0345) - 0662 (0245)

345 (500) 0765 (0301) 0599 (0236) 0549 (0216) 0785 (0309)

172 (250) 0572 (0225) - 0457 (0180)

Pressure 042 027 028 033 exponent

indicated that the fluid energy mill AP had a mass median diameter of 63 Am compared to 90 pm for typical hammer mill ground AP Batch SB-110 (HMX) was made using 1700 wt Class E HMX and 1000 wt of the FEM AP A reference batch SB-98 (HMX) was made using the hammer mill ground AP Strand burn rates and relative castability were detershy

mined on both of the batches Results are shown in Table 3-40 and Fig 3-16

(1) Replacement of the hammer mill ground (9 pm) AP by the FEM ground (63 pm) AP increased strandburn rate to 0950 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0374 ins at 1000 psia) This exceeds the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) Strand pressure exponent appeared to be reduced with use of the FEM ground AP

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of finer ballistic modifier particle size on propellant properties As discussed in the ANAPHTPB propellant development section an attritor mill was used to size reduce the ballistic modifiers ammonium dichroshymate and copper chromite Batch SB-117 (HMX) was made using 200 wt

3-90

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPBbinder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper Chromite

Dimethyl silicone

(1000 cS)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground US Steel with anti-caking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground US Steel with antishycaking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium perchlorate ground

SB-l08 (Reference)

AN-20

1200

1500

200

200

-

2000

-

2900

-

1000

1000

SB-107 SB-109

ANH-19 ANH-21

1185 1185

1500 1500

200 100

200 100

015 015

2000 2000

2900 3100

-

1000 1000

- -

1000 1000

3-91

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations -Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation (Continuation 1)

Relative Castability Excellent Uncastable Mix could not castability be completed

cured up in mix bowl

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0665 (0262) 0673 (0265) -

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0818 (0322) 0808 (0318) -

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 026

Card gap tests

35 cards

55 cards

69 cards 3 positive 3 positive

attritor ground (17 pm) copper chromite 1700 wt Class E HMX and FEM ground (63 pm) AP No ammonium dichromate was used in this batch as a part of the overall effort to achieve the burning rate goal 089

cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with improved performance (Isc)castability and physical properties Reference Batch SB-116 (AN ) was made using as received (21 pm) copper chromite Table 3-41 summarizes results of Brookfield end-of-mix visosity and strand burn rate tests on these two batches These results led to the following conclusions

(1) In an IDP plasticized formulation using only 200 wt CU-0202 P as ballistic modifier coarse ground AN and 63 Im FEM ground AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 m increased the strand burn rate at 690

Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0724 to 0737 cms (0285 to 0290 ins) t_2

(2) No significant change in strand pressure exponent was observed

(3) Castability was good for both batches

3-92

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103

25401 0 1 100

2032 - A CURED IN RAM-225 RELEASED STRAND MOLD - 8

B STRAND CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK

1524- BURNED WITHOUT TREATMENT 6

EU C STRANDS CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK SPRAYED WITH RAM-225 DRIED THEN BURNED ui

1016- 4 0C oD

z 7I- 0 z z z

CA _B

o 0o

z z0508 2

V)

BATCH No SB-89 (HMX)

FOMULATION ANH-9

0254 I I i I 10-1 69 103 138- 207 345 690

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (IIX) Formulation ANH-9

3-93

Table 3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size

Variation (Class E HMX - DOA Plasticizer)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with antishycaking coating)

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with

anticaking coating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative castability

Strand burning rates

at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(at 1000 psia)

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-90 SB-91 SB-93 SB-95

ANH-9 ANH-10 ANH-11 ANH-13

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

1500 1500 1500 1500

4400 2900 1760

- 1500 2640 4400

_

1000 1000 1000 1000

Uncastable Uncastable Marginally Castable castable

- 0678 0678 0516 (0 267 )a (0234)a (0 2 0 3 )a

0953 0859 0859 0665 -(0 3 7 5 )a (0 3 3 8 )a (0 299)a (0 2 6 2 )a

034 035 036

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were cut

from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased

by RAM-225 release agent

3-94

Table 3-39 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX - IDP Plasticizer)

Batch No SB-94 SB-96

Formulation No ANH-12 ANH-14

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticizer) 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium diohromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class E 1500 1500

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 2900

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 1500 4400

Ammonium perchlorate ground 1000 1000

Relative Castability Good castability

Excellent castability

Strand burning rates at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

-

0836 (0 329 )a

0518 (0 204 )a

0655 (0258) a

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were

cut from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased by RAM-225 release agent

3-95

1016 1 040

eE aQCNO

DOA PLASTICIZER

z CI-o 100

lt 0762 030 - I--

IDP PLASTICIZER

z Z

a a z z

--- 1-shy

0508 I-I I I20

cn

0 20 40 60 80 100 FRACTION OF COARSE GROUND AN wt

Fig 3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN

3-96

C

Table 3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations -AP Particle Size Variation (HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

Ammonium perchloriate hammer mill ground (Micromerograph 50 wt point 9 gim)

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (Mieromerograph 50 wt point 63 pm)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 45 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Relative Castability

3-97

SB-98 ANH-16 Reference

1200

1500

200

200 shy

1700

2700

1500

1000

0653 (0257)

0810 (0319)

030

Good

castability

SB-110 ANH-16

1200

1500

200

200

1700

2700

1500

-

1000

0843 (0332)

0950 (0374)

017

Good castability

slightly more viscous than SB-98 (HMX)

1270 1 050

K K

CN4 E 0

1016 040 0

o 0

100

BURN RATE GOAL

z z

= 0762 - 030 D

z z

05081 I I I I 020 40 50 60 70- 80 90 100t

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) gm

Fig 3-16i Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-98

Table 3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Particle Size Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Copper chromite

As received (21 pm)

Attritor ground (17 pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground

Total

Relative castability

Brookfield end-of-mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F) Strand burning rates at 250C

(770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

3-99

SB-116 (Reference) SB-117

ANH-24A ANH-24B

1200 1200

1500 1500

200

- 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1500 1500

1000 1000

10000 10000

Good Good

168 136

0610 (0240) 0627 (0247)

0724 (0285) 0737 (0290)

028 024

As was observed with the ANAPAIHTPB propellant reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burn rates

Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better optimize the ballistic modifier system for the basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB propelshylant Previous to this point in the program the mixed ballisticmodifishyer system of 200 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) with 200 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was used It was desirable to reduce the total ballistic modifier level to less than 400 wt and recover some shy

performance (II delivered) Elimination of AD was also desirable because of its tendency to crosslink the R-45 prepolymer with subsequent degradation of propellant castability and physical properties Batches SB-132 (HMX) and SB-138 (HMX) were made using only as-receivedCU-0202 P as the ballistic modifier at the 200 wt and 300 wt levels respecshytively The objective of testing these two batches was to determine whether the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm

2

(1000 psia) could be achieved by using only CU-0202 P at levels less than 400 wt Brookfield end-of-mix and strandburning rates were measured on both batches Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-42 and they indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate achieved with 300 wt as-received CU-0202 P was 6nly 0810 cms (0319 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(2) Based on extrapolation the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) does not appear achievshyable even at 400 wt as-received CU-0202 P

(3) A mixed ballistic modifier system of AD and CU-0202 P appears necessary to meet the burning rate goal

The third batch SB-134 (HMX) was made using the mixed ballistic modifier system of 100 wt hammer mill ground (72 m) AD and 200 wt as-received CU-0202 P Brookfield viscosity and strand burning rates were also measured on this batch and results are also shown in Table 3-42 They indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate of 0879 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0346 ins at 1000 psia) was achieved with Batch SB-134 (HMX) This almost meets the goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosity of 21 kP at 520C (125 0 F) indicated the propellant had acceptable castability

Limited time and budget did not allow for any additional optimization of the ballistic modifier system Therefore Formulation ANH-33 [Batch SB-134 (HMX)] was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed inthe sections on Scale-Up and Ballistic Evaluation

3-100

---

Table 3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 [m

Ammonium dichromate Hamshymer mill ground 72 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

HMX Class E

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground 63 pm

Brookfield End-of-mix Viscosity kP at 520C (1250F)

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-132

ANH-34

1200

1500

200

2900

1500

1700

1000

10000

33

(500 psia) 0594 (0234)

At 690 Ncm2 0757 (0298) (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

3-101

SB-138 SB-134

ANH-32 ANH-33

1200 1200

1500 1500

300 200

--- 100

2800 2800

1500 1500

1700 1700

1000 1000

10000 10000

Could not 21 measure

0630 (0248) 0615 (0242)

0810 (0319) 0879 (0346)

036 051

In summary the following approaches were investigated as methods

of achievins faster propellant burning rates and the goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncmd (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(1) HMX class (particle size)

(2) HMX level

(3) Dimethyl silicone as ballistic modifier

(4) Finer AN particle size

(5) Finer AP particle size

(6) Finer CU-0202 P particle size

(7) Ballistic modifier type and level

Of these only (1) (2) (5) and (7) proved to be effective approaches

to faster burning rates

c Hazards Classification The Naval Ordnance Station (NOS) did some of the initial propellant hazard classification testing to define the maximum level of HMX which could be used and remain a Class 2 propellant The basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB formulation selected for testing was an 88 wt total solids HTPB (R-45) formulation with 150

wt aluminum and 10 wt ammonium perchlorate Tests were planned on formulations with and without the ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P Table 3-43 summarizes results of these hazard tests These results indicated that 20 wt Class E HMX (15 Mm)in non-ballistic modified formulations gave propellants which marginally met card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards) AP particle size appeared to affect card gap test results No firm conclusions could be made regarding the ballistic modified formulations

This effort to define the maximum HMX level for a Class 2 ballisshytic modified propellant was continued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with AFRPL support Card gap tests made on the ballistic modified formulations reported in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 are summarized in Table 3-44 for convenience

General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Maximum level of Class A HMX is greater than 1000 wt and less than 1500 wt for a ballistic modified formulation

to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

(2) Maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1500 wt and less than 2000 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

3-102

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Ingredients wt

AN (unground) 430 430 4776 4279 390 3862

AP 45p m 100 - - -

AP 6 [m - - 995 995 - -

AP 4 [m - 100- - - - -

AP 2 4m - - - - 100 99

HMX 15 pm 200 200 1493 1990 200 198

Al H-12 150 150 1493 1493 150 1485

HTPB Binder 120 120 1243 1243 120 1287

AD - - - - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

CU-0202 P - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

Lab Safety Tests

Impact sensitivity mm 375 375 350 275 -

Friction kg (lb) gt444 gt444 gt444 gt444 -

(980) (980) (980) (980)

ESD J gt125 L125 125 gt125

Field Safety Tests

Card gap cards 55 to 65 to 0 60 to 35 to 55 to 60 70 - 65 50 60

Cap neg neg neg neg neg neg

3-103

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data (Continuation 1)

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Unconfirmed burning neg neg neg neg neg neg

Critical dia cm (in) gt64 gt64 gt64 gt64 lt89 lt89 (25) (25) (25) (25) (35) (35)

aX-ray of samples showed evidence of voids

Table 3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A with Class E)

Batch No HMX Card Gap

Wt Class Positive Negative Cards

SB-88 10 A - 2 0 - 1 -35

SB-83 15 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-84 20 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-87 10 E - 2 0 - 1 35

SB-85A 15 E - 32 - 2 35

SB-86 20 E 1 - 35 1 70

Class E HMX was selected because higher levels could be incorporated and remain a Class 2 propellant and because it gave the best ballistic properties

3-104

Two additional small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better define the maximum level of Class E HMX The Class E HMX was varied to the 1900 wt and 1700 wt levels for Batches SB-97 (HMX) and SB-98 (HMX) respectively Card gap sensitivity strand burning rates and relative castability were measured in both batches Table 3-45 shows the test results These tests indicated the maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1900 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

The 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches were made varying Class E HIX level to 1500 1700 and 1750 wt Card gap verification tests were made on these batches as shown later in Table 3-49 and test results are summarized in Table 3-46

Results of all the tests indicated the maximum level of Class E IHMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt for a ballistic

) modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

d Processing Studies The relative castability of propellant was observed on the small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) development batches and used in the selection of formulations for evaluation in the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches Brookfield end-of-mix and pot life tests were measured on all of the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches

The coarse Class A HMX (W149 gim) has a better particle size than the fine Class E HMX (15 - 20 pm) for solids packing Consequently the Class A HMX yielded propellants with better castability than the Class E HMX (Table 3-35) However Class E HMX was selected for all the scale-up batches because higher HMX levels could be used and ballistic properties were better (faster burn rates and lower pressure exponents) The level of MX was generally limited by Class 2 card gap constraints before castability became unacceptable

The lower viscosity plasticizer IDP yielded propellants with significantly better castability than the plasticizer DOA with only a slight loss in propellant burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) (Tables 3-38 and 3-39) Therefore IDP was the selected plasticizer

Replacement of the very coarse unground AN prills by coarselyground AN improved castability but reduced propellant burning rate Consequently the fraction of AN coarse ground was limited to 34 to maximize burn rate consistent with good castability (Tables 3-38 and 3-39

Replacement of the hammer mill ground (90 14m) AP by the fluid energy mill ground (63 jim) AP made the propellant more viscous but castability remained good (Table 3-40) This change significantly increased propellant burning rate and made the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) achievable (Fig 3-16) Therefore the fluid energy mill ground AP (63 pm) was selected for use when it became available

3-105

Table 3-45 ANHMXAPAHTPB-Formulation-z HMX Level (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating)

Ammonium nitratecoatse -ground (US Steel with anticaking c6ating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative Castability shy

-

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards

55 Cards

69 Cards

3-166

SB-97 SB98 ANH-15 ANH-16

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1900 1700

-2500 2700

1500 1500

1000 1000

Good Good

castability castability

0678 (0267) 0653 (0257)

0826 (0325) 0810 (0319)

028 030

1---positive

--- 1 positive

4 positive 2 negative

---

---

---

---

---

Table 3-46 JPL Hazard Test Data (Class E)

HMX Batch No

Wt Class

SB-89 (HMX) 15 E

SB-92 (HMX) 15 E

SB-106 (HMX) 175 E

SB-141 (H4X) 17 E

Positive

4

3

I

I

I

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

2

1

Card Gap

Negative Cards

6 0

10 35

2 0

5

--- 10

--- 15

--- 20

--- 27

3 30

5 35

--- 69

2 70

--- 35

--- 60

--- 61

--- 62

3 63

1 65

10 69

3-107

Replacement of the as-received CU-0202 P (21 pm) by attritor ground CU-0202 P (17 pm) did not significantly affect propellant castashybility Since this change increased burning rate by only 2 the asshyreceived (21 pm) CU-0202 P was selected Increasing the Cu-0202 P level from 200 to 300 wt significantly increased propellant viscosity making it less castable (Table 3-42)

Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were shown to signifishycantly improve castability and pot life with the ANAPAlHTPB propellant After checking to determine these materials were compatible and safety properties were adequate these pot-life extenders were incorporated into the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant

e Combustion Problems The problem of incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered speciflc impulse was addressed for the basic ANHMXAPAlHTBP propellant early in the program Two approaches evaluated to improve metal combustion I Land delivered specific impulse were

(1) Use of aluminummagnesium (AlMg) alloys

(2) Replacement of aluminum by magnesium

This work (by NOS) was done concurrently Mith the development -CV of the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant using conventional aluminum For convenience and clarity all of the NOS propellant development work done with the R-45 HTPB binder is reported and discussed in this section

Table 4-47 summarizes results of motor tests on ANHMXAPA1HTPB propellants with no ballistic modifiers Propellant formulation variations made were

(1) Total solids loading (87 to 88 wt )

(2) AP particle size (20 and 200 [m)

(3) HMX (Class E) level (20 and 30 wt )

(4) Metal level (15 to 20 wt ) shy

(5) Metal type (Al -and AlMg alloy)

The motors tested were either 4536-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors or 1814-kg (40-1b) charge (FPC) motors at sea level conditions Corrections to vacuum conditions with E = 685 were made as shown in Table 4-47 General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Motor burning rates at 483 Ncm2 (700 psia) were all in the range of 0356 to 0457 cms (014 to 018 ins) Ballistic modifiers are required to meet burning rate goal of 089 Ncm2 (035 ins) with a pressure exponent of

042

3-108

Table 3-47 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation

Specific Impulse

Propellant Data N-skg (s)

Burning rate at 483 Ncm

2

AP Vacuumd (700 psi)Motor Percent Particle Percent Percent

Typeb of AP Size m of HMX of Metal Type of Metal Delivered c = 685 cms (ins)

TPC 10 200 20 20 Aluminum 19476 (1986) 0356 (014)

20 19 AlMg (9010) 19760 (2015) 21633 (2206) 0381 (015)TPCa 200

TPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 21114 (2153) 22271 (2271) 0381 (015)

TPC 200 20 15 AlMg (9010) 20359 (2076) 20908 (2312) 0356 (014)

0 TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20398 (2080) 22467 (2291) 0356 (014)

TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23134 (2358) 0356 (014)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 21045 (2146) 23222 (2368) 0457 (018)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23242 (2370) 0457 (018)

FPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 19192 (1957) 21898 (2233) 0445 (0175)

00 wt total solids loaded propellant the remainder are 88 wt a87 bTPC are 4536-kg (10-1b) charge motor grains

CFPC are 1814-kg (40-1b) charge motor grains dAll motor tests were made at sea level Correction to vacuum conditi6ns was made as follows

fFdt me + Pa Aeta Vac Isp ms =

CF Creq

Correction to desired expansion ratio (c req) was done by multiplying vac Isp ms by C

CF C act

(2) The maximum vac Isp ms e = 685 obtained for this series of tests were 23242 N-skg (2370 s) This was obtained using 15 wt conventional Al 20 wt Class E HMX and 10 wt 20 jim AP The performance goal was vac Isp ms

E = 71 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(3) Reducing the AP particle size from 200 to 20 gm significantly improved vac Isp ms pound1177 N-skg (C12s)] and increased

burning rate

(4) Increasing the Class E HMX level from 20 to 30 wt signishyficantly increased vac Is ms 686 N-skg (-7 s) However propellant with 30 wt C ass E HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Increasing the metal level from 15 wt to 19 or 20 wt significantly reduced vac inpMs

(6) Replacement of the conventional aluminum by the AlMg alloy

(9010) appeared to give a small performance gain 392 N-skg (14 s) However the data was too limited to draw

firm conclusions

Propellant development effort was continued in an effort to achieve the performance goals The ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P were selected based on work done by JPL In addition finer AP particle sizes were selected based on the ability of this approach to achieve both improved performance and faster burning rates A Class E HMX level of 20 wt O was selected as the maximum to meet card gap requirements for Class 2 propellants based on card gap tests available at that time Table 3-48 summarizes motor test and theoretical performance results on the three ballisttc modified propellant formulations evaluated Formushylation 2A used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system 10 wt 55 Jim AP and 15 wt conventional aluminum Formulation 2Bused 1 wt AD as ballistic modifier 10 wt 10 gm AP and 15 wt AlMg alloy (9010) Formulation 2C used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system no AP and 15 wt magnesium The motor test results shown are all from 45-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors Since several formulation variables were varied between the three formulations it is not possible to isolate just the effect of metal type on propellant performance However the following general conclusions can be made from this work

(1) Formulation 2A which used conventional aluminum was the most promising candidate The vac Isp ms E = 684of 24144 N-skg (2462 s) met the goal of vac Isp Ms E = 71 -2403 N-sks (245 s) Burning rate achieved was 076 cms at 483 Ncm (030 ins at 700 psia) compared to the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with a pressure exponent _04

(2) Formulation 2B which used the AlMg alloy (9010) had a theiretical Isp (1000147) nearly the same as formulashy

tion 2A but Vac Isp msC = 684 was only 23252 N-skg(2371 s) In addition the burning rate was only 053

3-10

---

---

Table 3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured

Propellant No

Ingredients wt

AN

AP

HMX (15 pm)

Al

AlMg alloy (9010)

Mg

AD

CU-0202 P

R-45M

DOA

Theoretical Density gcm 3

(lbin3 )

Theoretical I

(Iooo147 )a Lcm 2 (s)

Measured Isp N-skg (s) at e = 55

2A

410

100 (55 fim)

200

150

10

10

80

40

17051

(00616)

24978

(2547)

22810 (2326)

Measured Vac Is N-skg (s) 24144 corr to E = 68 (2462)

Burn rate at 483 Ncm3

(700 psia) cms 076 (ins) (030)

2B 2C

420 510

100 (10 pm) --shy

200 200

150 --shy

--- 150

10 10

--- 10

100 80

20 40

16829 16027

(00608) (00579)

24958 23997 (2545) (2447)

21310 20113 (2173) (2051)

23252 22673 (2371) (2312)

053 041 (021) (016)

aStandard Conditions Chamber pressure of 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and expanded to 1 atm (147 psia)

3-111

cms at 483 Ncm2 (021 ins at 700 psia) for this formulation This data suggests that there was no performance advantage in using the AlMg alloy compared to conventional aluminum

(3) Formulation 2C which used magnesium as the metal had theoshyretical density and theoretical Isp (1000147) values significantly lower than formulation 2A The measured Isp and burning rates confirmed that this was-the least attractive of the three formulations

This work was ended at this stage of the program Good Isp efficiencies were being achieved with conventional aluminum using 10 wt fine particlesize AP and the selected ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P

f Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Four formulashytions were selected for scale-up evaluation and motor tests throughout the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant development effort Table 3-49 shows these four formulations Major changes in the formulations which were made as a result of the development effort on the small scale were

(1) dhange from DOAt lower viscbsity lasti6izdr IDP to improveshycastability

(2) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH to improve castability and pot life

(3) Reductions of the total ballistic modifier level from 400 wt to 300 wt to improve performance

(4) Selection of 17 wt ClassE HMX to achieve maximum performance and burning rate within the constraint of a Class 2 propellant

(5) Changes in the AN type to the higher density harder prill Monsanto AN to improve castability and burn rate control

(6) Change from hammer mill ground 8-9 gm AP to the finer fluid energy mill ground 63 Itm AP to achieve faster burning rates

All four formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into 5 x 10 motors BATES motors and small-scale samples The motors were successfully tested and results are summarized and discussed in Subsection g Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

3-112

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No SB-89 SB-92 SB-106 SB-141

Formulation No ANH-9 ANH-12 ANH-18 ANH-33

Batch size kg (ib) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Ingredients wt

R-45 polymer 6470 6582 6528 6397

DOA plasticizer 4613

IDP plasticizer --- 4647 4609 4615

)OA plasticizer (HMX coating) 0187 0153 0191 0185

Lirosperse 11 P 0113 0113 0113 0113

UOP-36 0040

DTBH --- --- --- 0040

IPDI 0617 0559 0559 0610

Ammonium dichromate (ground 7 Mm) 200 200 200 100

Copper chromite (as received 21 pm) 200 200 200 200

Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500

--- --- ---

---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil U S Steel Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

U S Steel Monsanto ---

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8-9 Am fluid energy mill ground 63 Am

Totals

Brookfield apparent viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) (Viscosity kPtime after curative addition)

End-of-mix

(Continuation 1)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

1500

4400

1000

10000

2208 2018 2128

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

1500

2900

1500

1000

10000

1609 2819 2929 4139 4149

SB-106 SB-141

ANH-18 ANH-33

104 (230) 113 (250)

1750 1700

2900 2800

1250 1500

1000 --shy1000

10000 10000

1008 708 1418 1318 2228 1527 2438 2137

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Nam 2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm (750 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

20 cards 27 cards 30 cards 35 cards 60 cards 61 cards 62 cards 63 cards

65 cards

(Continuation 2)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

0599 (0236)

0721 (0284)

027

6 negative 4 positive

10 negative

---

---

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

0503 (0198) 0617 (0243) 0691 (0272) 0775 (0305)

031

2 negative 3 positive 1 positive 1 positive 3 negative 5 negative

SB-106

ANH-18

104 (230)

0566 (0223) 0683 (0269) 0767 Co302) 0818 (0322)

027

SB-141

AHN-33

113 (250)

0544 (0214) 0622 (0245) 0719 (0283) 0805 (0317)

037

1 positive 1 positive 2 positive 3 negative

1 positive 1 negative

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type (Continuation 3)

SB-89 SB-92 SB-I06 SB-141Batch No

Formulation No ANH9 ANH-12 ANH-18 AHN-33

Batch size kg (lb) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Card Gap Tests (Contd)

69 cards --- --- --- 10 negative

70cards --- --- 2 negative 6 positive

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770 F) gcm3 (lbin3 ) 16746 (00605) 16359 (00591) 16691 (00603) 16663 (00602)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties

Sm 1cm 2 (psi) --- 49 (71) --- 64

em --- 19 --- 68

44 (64)--- 49 (71) ---Sb Ncm 2 (psi)

68eb --- 19 ---

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-49 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) End-of-mix viscosities and pot life improved as changes were made to IDP plasticizer use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH and Monsanto AN End-of-mix viscosity for batch SB-141 (HMX) was 7 kP at 520C (125 0 F) and pot life was greater than 37 h

(2) Faster burning rates were achieved as the HNX level was increased as the Gulf Oil AN was replaced by US Steel AN and then by Monsanto AN and as the hammer mill ground AP was replaced by the finer fluid energy mill ground AP

(3) Maximum strand burning rate achieved at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) was 081 cms (032 ins) with batch SB-106 (HMX)

(4) Strand pressure exponents on all four formulations were in the range of 027 to 037 Motor pressure exponents were lower than strand pressure exponents These low-pressure exponents are advantageous and meet the goal of lt042

(5) Card gap tests verified that the maximum level-of Class E HMX which meets the card gap requirements for a Class 2 propellant is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt

(6) Measured densities were in the range of 16359 to 16746 gcm3 (00591 to 00605 lbin3) for the four formulations

(7) The JANNAF uniaxial properties were oor with maximum stress values in the range of 44 to 49 Ncm (64 to 71 psi) and strain at maximum stress values in the range of 19 to 68

g Ballistic Evaluation ANHMXAPAIHTPB Systems The candidate alternate propellant containing HMX was evaluated in BATES motor firings at three levels of HMX 150 170 and 175 The 150 HMX formulation yielded the highest measured Isp Theoretical calculations had shown 170 to 175 to be optimum for maximum Isp Data from the BATES motor tests suggests that the actual optimum HMX level is somewhere between 15 and 16 This level of HMX in the propellant has been demonstrated to be within the Class 2 requirement The ballistic test data for the three HMX systems follows

(1) Formulation ANH-12 (150 HMX) Figure 3-17 shows the burning rate KN and pressure exponent for this propellant The BATES motor test data is summarized in Table 3-50

(2) Formulation ANH-39 (170 HMX) The ballistic evaluation test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-18 and Table 3-51

3-117

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104 61524 1 1 1

41016-

-2 2lt E0508-

0 KN -IA BATES MOTOR DATA KN

100 1 -1 0264 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 1000 10

0 0203_ 800 -8 0152 n 0310152 600 6

D 0102 - 400 -4

0051 - 200 - 2

I I I I 100025 1 -2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895 2

PRESSURE Ncm

Figure 3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92

3-n18

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No E-1466 E-1467

Test Date Nov 14 1975 Nov 26 1975

BatchChange No SB-921 SB-922

Nozzle Bt initial 4699 3764 cm (in) (1850) (1482)

Nozzle Dt final 4374 3571 cm (in) (1722) (1406)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 2981 2979 (6572) (6567)

Wp expended kg (ib) 29395 2940

(64806) (6482)

wt expended 986 987

Web thickness cm (in) 45789 4610 (18207) (1815)

tb (burn time) s 735 586

ta (action time) s 764 624

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 310 531 (450) (770)

PC max Ncm2 (psia) 386 731 (560) (1060)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 376 702 (545) (1018)

AP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26245 41056 (38066) (59547)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26779 42285 (38840) (61329)

3-119

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

Pa (3P dttb) Ncm2

(psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

It (1F dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion Ratio

E-1466

Nov 14 1975

SB-921

3511 (5179)

0630 (0248)

2253

2411

14507 (47594)

962

6193679 (1392395)

842675 (189441)

6198003 (1393367)

207921 (21202)

9249

237546 (24223)

70

E-1467

Nov 26 1975

SB-922

7006 (10162)

0787 (0310)

3511

3689

14983 k49156)

1006

6349309 (1427382)

1083497 (24358)

6559790 (147470)

220218 (22456)

916

235526 (24017)

70

3-120

PRESSURE psia

10 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 104 1524 I 6

1016 4

0508 0- 2

u KN A BATES MOTOR TESTS N

0254 - 1000 10lt 2 0 5x 10 MOTOR TESTS 8 - 1

0203800g- 8

Z 0152 n 037 600 6 z z

0102 400 4

0051 -- 200 2

I I1 -2

0025 69 138 345 690 1379 t 3447 6895

-PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 AHHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-141

3-121

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 PropellantTable 3-51

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

E-1490E-1489Run No

62376 62476Test Date

SB-1412 SB-1411BatchChange No

352684572Nozzle Dt initial cm (in) (1800) (13885)

3444Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 4531

(1784) (1356)

30133017W loaded kg (ib) (6651) (6643)

29332938Wp expended kg (lb) (6477) (6466)

97339738 wt expended

Web thickness cm (in) 4633 4643 (1824) (1828)

570747tb (burn time) s

638 ta (action time) S

794

Pc initialNem2 (psia) 345 683 (500) (990)

362 Pc maximum Ncm2 (psia) 752 (525) (1090)

Pc final Ncm2 N(psia) 324 649 (470) (942)

41665fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 25961 (37654) (6043)

ft dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26554 42802 (6208)(38514)

Pc ( P dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 347 731 (524) (1060)

3-122

Table 3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

r at P0 cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

F dt (tb) Ns (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

it cfF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion ratio (E)

De cm (in)

2Ae cm (in2 )

3-123

E-1489 E-1490

62376 62476

SB-1412 SB-1411

0620 0815 (0244) (0321)

2330 3989

2395 4077

143Q7 13540 (46940) (44421)

945 895

5979680 6258348 (1344286) (1406933)

8007 10978 (1800) (2468)

60958 64441 (13704) (14487) 202056 21388

(20604) (2181)

887 872

23183 22810 (2364) (2326)

716 716

12233 9426 (4816) (3711)

117522 69781 (18216) (10816)

(3) Formulation ANH-18 (175 HMX) The ballistic evaluation

test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-19 and Table 3-52

h Summary Two ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant formulations were developed that conformed to the program constraints for 3 wt HCl in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards classification These two formulations are ANH-12 (15 wt Class E HMX) and ANH-33 (17 wt Class E HMX) Table 3-53 summarizes and compares the properties of these two formulations versus the program goals Both formulations met the goals for pressure exponent and hazard classification but not the goal for burning rateor delivered vacuum I

The following summarizes the status of the ANH4XAPAlHTPB propellant development

(1) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic propellants

(2) Demonstrated the propellant is Class 2 with levels of Class E HMX up to 17 wt

(3) Demonstrated good castability and pot life greater than 37 h for formulations with 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(4) Successfully loaded and test fired 45-kg (10-1b) motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with formulations containing 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(5) Demonstrated a delivered vacuum Isp (E = 716) of 23752 N-skg (2422 s) with formulation ANH-12

(6) Demonstrated a BATES motor burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) and a pressure exponent of 037 with formulation ANH-33

(7) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

(8) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 150 and 170

11 Baseline PBAN Propellant Modification

The current baseline propellant system in the Shuttle SRM is

an 86 solids 16 aluminum PBAN propellant developed by the Thiokol Corporation This baseline propellant has a burning rate of approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) pressure In order to simplify the task of matching the burning rates of the alternate propellant and the PBAN baseline-propellant at 400Ncm2 (580 psia)

-3-124

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 103

1524 I 6

1016 - 4

A BATES MOTOR DATA 0508 - 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 20508 n =031

E -_ Ko

U IN

u- 0254 - -1000 10shy0203 -800 8

oD 0 z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0102 - 400 4

0051 200 2

0025 I I I0 - 2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Figure 3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-106

3-125

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HNX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

Nozzle Dt initial 4592 3543 cm (in) (1808) (1395)

Nozzle Dt final 4463 3388 cm (in) (1757) (1334)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3022 3023 (6662) (6664)

Wp expended kg (ib) 2956 2957

(6516) (6519)

Wt expended 9781 9782

Web thickness cm (in) 4615 4615 (1817) (1817)

tb (burn time) s 788 - 628

ta (action time) s 818 665

PC initial Ncm2 (psia) 248 483 (360) (700)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 352 717 (510) (1040)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 296 622 (430) (902)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 262146 42991 (380212) (62353)

fp dt (ta) N-scm 2 (lb-s) 265874 44074 (385619) (63924)

3-126

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HMX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 1471 3026 (4825) (9929)

r at Pc cms (ins) 0587 0734 (0231) (0289)

KN initial 2353 3953

KN average 2421 4131

C ms (fts) 14159 13741 (46425) (45083)

C efficiency 945 916

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 599055 6320560 (134673) (1420919)

F (fF dttb) N (ib) 7602 100645 (1709) (22626)

it (fF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s) 608823 6498885 (136869) (1461008)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 201478 215001 (20545) (21924)

Isp efficiency 8901 8868

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s) 231761 229240 (23633) (23376)

Expansion ratio 71 72

3-127

Table 3-53 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goal

Achieved Value

Alternate Propellant SB-92 (HMX) SB-141 (HMX)

Property Goal ANH-12 ANH-33 (15 HMX) (17 HMX)

Burning Rate at 089 0785 0813 690 Ncm 2 (035) (0309) (032) (1000 psia) BATES Motor cms (ins)

Pressure Exponent lt042 032 037 BATES motor

Delivered Vacuum 2403 23732 23183 Isp N-skg (s) (gt245) (2422) (2364)

71)

HCl in Exhaust 3

Meets Card Gap Requirement for Class 2 yes yes Class 2 required (negative (negative

at 30 cards) at 30 cards)

pressure it was decided to miodify the baseline propellant system to

meet a burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) This modified baseline applies to the dual propellant concept with the alternate propellant only It does not apply to the current Shuttle design requirements The 081 cms (03 ins) burning rate has been achieved and demonstrated in 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings The modified PBAN formulation is referred to in this report as the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

In modifying the basic PBAN formulation to meet the new burning

rate requirement a study was made of the effect on the burning rate of adjusting the Fe203 burning rate catalyst concentration and the

particle size blend of the AP oxidizer The desired burning rate was achieved with a formulation containing a biomodal blend of

Table 3-54 gives the final formulationoxidizer and 0 Fe203 the density and some burning characteristics of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

3-128

Table 3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend

Ingredients Wt

Ammonium perchlorate

200 pm 4900 10 pm 2100

Aluminum (Alcoa 1230) 1600

PBAN polymer 1204

DER-331 196

10000

Density 2500 (770F) = 17743 gcm3 (00641 lbin3 ) Burn Rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 081 cms (032 ins) Pressure exponent n = 0228 at I

345 Ncm 2 (00 psia) lt Pc lt 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

The burning rate of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant was verified by test firing several 5 x 10 motors using 45 kg (-10 lb) of propellant over a range of pressures Figure 3-20 shows the burning rates and corresponding Kn values The burning rate equation for this modified PBAN propellant based on the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings is

r = 00668 PC0228

3-129

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 8104

1524 6

1016- 4

0508 - 2

E K - 0 5x 10 MOTOR DATAshy

0254 - 1000 10 - 1

0203 n = 0228 800 8 z 0152- a = 00668 600 6

z z 0102 -400 4

200 20051

0025 _I _I I I 10-2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant)

Batch No SB-78

3-130

SECTION IV

UNWORKED AREAS

The program as originally planned included a significant effort in the development of the candidate alternate propellant physical propshyerties and checks to verify adequacy of candidate alternate propellant in the bipropellant grain The reduction of funds and scopeof the program left many of these tasks unworked If the alternate propelshylant concept for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Motor is pursued on another program then the following unworked areas should be worked

(1) Candidate alternate propellant physical property improvement

(2) Physical property characterization of unaged alternate

propellant

(3) Aging of alternate propellant

(4) Bipropellant interface bond unaged and aged

(5) Alternate propellant insulation interface bond unaged and aged

(6) Performance tests at altitude on candidate alternate propellant

(7) Motor tests with bipropellant grain

(8) Characterization of alternate propellant safety properties

The generally poor physical properties (primarily low strain) measured with both the ANAPAlHTPB and the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propelshylants are believed due primarily to the following causes

(1) Poor bond of the HTPB binder to the oxidizer particles

AN and HMX

(2) Crosslinking of the R-45 HTPB polymer through the double bonds caused by the acidity of AN

The approach planned to solve the poor bonding properties to the oxidizer particles was development of bonding agents for both the AN and the HMX Aerojet Solid Propulsion Company has demonstrated significantly improved physical properties in HMXAPAlHTPB propellants using polyureas as bonding agents Epoxides and polyureas were considered as candidate bonding agents for the AN Development of an acid scavengershywas considered as one of the approaches to the second cause of the poor physicals

4-1

SECTION V

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this alternate propellant development effort led to the following general conclusions

(1) It is technically feasible to minimize (lt_3 wt ) release of HCl above 1981 km (65000 ft)

(2) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants Formushylation ANH-12 is the best formulation developed to date

(3) Propellant with 17 wt Class E HMX meets card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(4) The basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant is the second most promshyising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants

(5) More than 1000 wt AP (gt3 HCI in propellant exhaust) is required in the ANAPAlHTPB propellant to meet the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) Formulation AN-71 with 2000 wt AP is the best formulation of this type developed to date

(6) The basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant (0 HCl) is the least promising candidate and probably not viable for achieving program goals

(7) A few of AP is essential to achieve good aluminum comshybustion

(8) Good castability and acceptable pot life were achieved with all three basic alternate propellants

(9) Additional development effort is needed to improve the physical properties of any of the candidate propellants

(10) The small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justify the potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradashytion

(11) The Monsanto phase stabilized E-2 AN is the preferred AN type because it has the best physical and handling propershyties at comparable cost compared to other AN types

(12) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 15 and 17

5-I

(13) With additional effort to optimize the formulation with regard to HMX level burning rate modifier level and oxidizer particle size the program goals ban be met with an ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant system

5-2

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM

SOLUBILITY OF MTN INI HYDROCARBON BINDER

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

MMORANDUM

From 2051BCTo 563 Via 205

Subj Solubility of MTN in hydrocarbon binder

1 A study was conducted to determine if MTN could be used in the R45 binder system for the NASA II propellant Dicetyladipate (DOA) would be used for a co-solvent

2 Figure 1 is a portion of a phase diagram for the MTN-DOA-R45 system Areas to the right of the curve are two phase Areas to the left of the curve are single phase The effect of temperature is also shown

3 For Figure 2 TP90B was used instead of DOA TP90B is not as effective a co-solvent as DOA

4 Beccause PPG-1225 (a polypropylene glycol) is soluble both in R45 afidMTN it also was invesrigated PFG-1225 has an advantage over DOA in that it is a reactive polymer and could contribute to the mechanical strength as well as providingco-solubility In Figure 3 a 5050 mixture of R45 and PGshy1225 was used for the starting material The solubility of MTN was determined Because PPG-1225 was not a very goodco-solvent DOA was added to enhance the solubility Areas to the right of the curve are two phase and areas to the left of the curve are single phase

5 For Figure 4 a starting material of 733 R-45 and 261 PPG-1225 was used DOA was used to enhance the solubility of MTN in the system

6 It was determined that adiponitrile was not solulle in R45 and therefore could not be used to replace DOA

7 It was determined that R-18 (a polyglycol adipate) was not soluble in R45 and therefore could not be used to replacePPG-1225

8 A sample from Figure 1 was cured with IPDI This will be used to evaluate the long term effect of the nitrate ester on the binder system

Enclosure (1)

A-i

OrNA PALi I

1

ROOM--H- 2 - I

____

-OM I H j 1 35 TEMPERATURE i TI I ItI

I I I I

25

I 3 0 Z _--_ _ _

i i ii

5 n

JI t II it

t - -- -

151 1 1H - IL I

i s _ _

I- III I I I

715

MTffN 20 2 P

Figure 1 So bility of DOA and TN plusmnn R-A5

A-2

- -

40

Lj

r -

11- f

- - iutm

30 HH

-4-

__I_ ____

~ I

~vt

_

[ I_ _ iJ

25 _ _ _

1 1kH I __ _ _ _- _ _ __ _ _

-H 71

- r T--- W 4J-W-L -- t ___ __

_ _ _ __ _ _

q----i- -

52

Figure2 Solubility o f P9BadM1 nR4

A-3

iplusmn II1 -shyI~hhiI4plusmnplusmnt~~t~ -

LL J-

rO zt_-il 4 it-T i -- - -- --a -- 4- shy

-- 4 tL ---L-C-- 1 ------ 13-F- --shy

--- 4 i

I _

I I --0F

L II

it I _ _ _- _ I___

I- - -- - - - ---- shy--_ _ __ __-L J _ _

I - i t1 hIIt -____I j I

-+4 4 1 - - - -I 7 _ -J shy______ _ 2---2--I_lc_

L L rI-T- r

4 -I - -t -- u

10 15 20 25 30 N

Figure 3 Solubility of DOA and LMN in 50 R-4550 PG-1225

A-4

1

35 f

it-lt-ir

II I II

303i-- h

4o

z5-11144_FLI Lb deg T - shy i

bull

25

- -

20

I

- i11 fI1I

Ii JIf j -shy

1 iifIF

I I j I

dstkj tji--4

-4--4 1

1

I0tLLIL t

I

1wi

IFI 4 I

r

iiL -shy plusmn4 4 - H _

64211

I

L3

M -44

t

-i-

__

5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 4 ltSolubility of DOA and MTN in 733 R-45267 PPG-1225

A-5

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

9 -Ifan 88 (or 84) solids loaded 6 polymeric binder system will give acceptable physical properties then the

following formulations should be investigated

R-45 PPG1225 DA MT__N Al AP 1HM AN

10 4360 - -40 20 15 20 44 16 36 24 15 10 20 43

5360 - 40 20 15 10 10 44 1-6 36 24 15 10 10 53

15 10 20 3960 - 66 34 44 16 62 38 15 10 20 39

To properly evaluate these they should be compared to

AL AP HMK ANR-45 DOA 5360 60 15 10 20

10 53100 20 15 20

A quick look at some of the theoretical results to date indishycate that these substit-utions of - MTNfor Inert polymer -may result ina gain of about18 pounds seclb in impulse and a gain of 0001 poundscu in in density

C EJOHNSON

Copy to 205 2051BC 2051C1 TDI

A-6

PU BLICATION79-29

Page 2: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

1- TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD

1 Report No 2 Government Accession No 3 Recipients Catalog No JPL libiei 7-2

4 Title and Subtitle 5 Report Date ALTERNATE PROPELLANT PROGRAM July 1 19 PHASE I FINAL REPORT 6 Performing Organization

7 Author(s) 8 Performing Qrganization Re F A Anderson and W R West

9 Performing Organization Name and Address 10 Work Unit No JET -PROPULSIONLABORATORY California Institute of Technology 11 Contract or Grant No 4800 Oak Grove Drive NAS 7-100 Pasadena California 91103 13 Type of Report and Period C

12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address JPL Publication

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Washington DC 20546 14 Sponsoring Agency Code

15 Supplementary Notes

16 Abstract

This report documents the work done by the Caltech-Jet Propulsion Laboratory of NASJ for the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA on a Shuttle Alternate PropellantProgram0 The work was done as a Phase I follow-on effort to a previous Phase 0 feasibility study The program was designed to investigate three candidate propell systems for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) which would eliminate or greatly reduce the amount of H0l produced in the exhaust of the Shuttle SEM Ammonium nitrate was selected for consideration as the main oxidizer with ammonium pdrchlorate and nitramine cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine as secondary oxidiz The amount of ammonium perchlorate used was limited to an amount which would produc an exhaust containing no more than 3 H1

17 Key Words (Selected by Author(s)) 18 Distribution Statement

Propulsions and Fuels (General) Unclassified - Unlimited Rocket Propellants

19 Security Classif (of this report) 20 Security Classif (of this page) 21 No of Pabes 22 Price

Unclassified Unclassified 168 1

JPL PUBLICATION 79-29 -

Alternate PropellantProgram Phase I Final Report

FA Anderson W R West

July 1 1979

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of Technology Pasadena California

The research described in this publication was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology under NASA Contract No NAS7-100

-PREFACE

This final report describes the work done to develop candidate alternate propellants for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor

- This work was done by theSolid Propulsion and Environmental Systems Section Control and Energy Conversion Division of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville Alabama

iii

DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS

AD ammonium dichromate

AFRPL Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory

Ae exit area

Al aluminum

A1203 aluminum oxide

Afros Alrosperse

AN ammonium nitrate

AP ammonium perchlorate

BATES Ballistic Test and Evaluation System

C characteristic exhaust velocity

CU-0202 P copper chromite catalyst (trade name of Harshaw Chemical Co)

De exit diameter

DOA dioctyl adipate

DSC differential scanning calorimeter

Dt throat diameter

ESD electrostatic discharge

ETS Edwards Test Station

DTBH 25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone

eb elongation at break

em elongation at maximum stress

E expansion ratio

F thrust

F average thrust

FeF3 ferric fluoride

Fe203 iron oxide

FEM fluid energy mill

iv

HCI hydrogen chloride

HMX cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine

HTPB hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene-

IDP isodecyl pelargonate

IPDI isophorone diisocyanate

Isp0 specific impulse sea level optimum Pc 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) Isp ms measured specific impulse

it total impulse

KP potassium peroblorate

KN ratio of propellant burn area to throat area

kP kilopoise (1 kP = 100 N-sm2)

Mg magnesium

iam microns

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

n pressure exponent

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOS Naval Ordnance Station (Indian Head Md)

Pa ambient pressure

PHAN polybutadiene acrylic acid acrylonitrile terpolymer

Pe exit pressure

PC chamber pressure

PC average chamber pressure

PPG-1225 polypropylene glycol

Protech 2002 CSD proprietary metal-deactivating antioxidant (trade name)

r burning rate

hydroxy-terminated polyester

R-45M hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene

v

R-18

Sb tensile strength at break

SL opt sea level optimum

Sm maximum tensile strength

SRM solid rocket motor

ta action time

tb web burn time

tEWAT time at end of web action time

TMETN 111-trimethylolethane trinitrate

RAM-225 silicone oil in solvent (release agent)

UOP-36 N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine

UV ultraviolet

Nweight flow rate

W p Propellant weight

Zr Zirconium

p density

vi

ABSTRACT

This report documents the work done by the Caltech-Jet PropulsionLaboratory of NASA for the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA on a Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program The work was done as a Phase I follow-on effort to a previous Phase 0 feasibility study The program was designed to investigate three candidate propellant systems for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) which would eliminate or greatly reducethe amount of HC produced in the exhaust of the Shuttle SRM Ammonium nitrate was selected for consideration as the main oxidizer with ammonium perchlorate and the nitramine cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine (HMX) as secondary oxidizers The amount of ammonium perchlorate used was limited to an amount which would produce an exhaust containing no more than 3 HC1

Development work was carried out on three basic candidate propellantsystems (1) a mixed oxidizer of ammonium nitrate and ammonium perchlorate (2) a mixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate and HMX and (3) amixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate ammonium perchlorate and HMX All three systems contained 15 aluminum powder and had a total solids loading of 88 A urethane binder based on a hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene cured with a diisocyanate was selected as the binder system

The first and third propellant systems outlined above were developed to the point of successful scale-up and loading of 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes and successful test firing of 45-kg (10-1b) test motors and 32-kg(70-1b) BATES motors The second propellant system the ANHMX oxidizer system received only very limited development due to a out-back in both the funds and schedule time initially planned for this program All three propellants had satisfactory processing characteristics however at the 88 solids loading

The first and third propellant systems (the ANAP and the ANHMXAPoxidizer systems) were both also subjected to hazard testing and were demonstrated to conform to Class 2 hazard classification with HMX levels up to 17 wt in the HMX-containing propellant The second oxidizer combination system (the ANHMX) was not characterized as to hazards classification for the reasons mentioned earlier

The utilization of the low-Hl-producing alternate propellant was planned to be in ccmbinatidn with the current baseline PBAN propellantin a dual propellant design Therefore mutual compatibility between the two propellants was essential In order to lessen the severity of the burning rate requirement for the alternate propellant it was decided to decrease the burning rate specification for the PBAN baseline propellant to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) A modified baseline PBAN propellant formulation was therefore developed to conform to the lower burning rate specification It should be pointed out here that this modified baseline propellant system applies only to the dual propellantgrain design and does not relate in any way to the specifications of the present system being developed for the current Shuttle SRM The ballistic properties of the modified baseline PBAN propellant were demonstrated in several 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

vii

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION - 1-1

II SUMMARY- 2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPA1HTPB ------------------------- 2-2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXAlHTPB ------------------------ 2-2

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB --------------------- 2-2

D SYSTEM NO 4 MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE --------------- 2-3

III PHASE I PROGRAM -------------------------------------------- 3-1

A OBJECTIVE -------------------------------------------- 3-1

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS ---------------------------------- 3-1

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS ------------------------- 3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA ------------------------------------- 3-2

E PROGRAM APPROACH -------------------------------------- 3-2

F NOS PARTICIPATION ------------------------------------- 3-5

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE ------------ ---------------------- 3-5

H DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------- 3-6

IV UNWORKED AREAS --------------------------------------------- 4-1

V CONCLUSIONS ------------------------------------------------ 5-1

APPENDIX

A SOLUBILITY OF MTN IN HYDROCARBON BINDER -------------- A-i

Figures

3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB --------- 3-14

3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5 AP in ANAPAlHTPB --------- 315

ix

3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPAlHTPB -------------- 3-16

3-4 Specific Volume- of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature--------------------------------------- 3-26

3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ---------------------- 3-31

3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Gulf AN) ------------------- 3-39

3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-40

3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ---------------------------- 44

3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73 ---------------- 57

3-10 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74 ------ 3-58

3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTBP Propellants ---------------------------- 3-65

3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140 --------------- 74

3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-89

3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (HMX) Formulation ANH-9 ----------------------------------- 3-93

3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN ---------- 3-96

3-16 Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------ 3-98

3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92 -------------------------------------- 3-118

3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-11 ------------------------------------- 3-121

3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-l06 ------------------------------------- 3-125

x

3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant) Batch No SB-78 -------------------------------------- 3130

Tables

21 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ---------------------------------- 2-4

22 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-5

23 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-6

3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN ------------------------------------------- 3-7

3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN --------------------------------------- 3-9

3-3 Propellant Exhaust Composition ----------------------- 3-13

3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations ----------------------------------- 3-18

3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-20

3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-21

3-7 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received Properties ------------------------------------------- 3-23

3-8 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics -------------------------------------- 3-24

3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-28

3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P---------------------------------------- 3-32

3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-33

3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPA1HTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-36

3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-38

xi

3-14 Evaluation of-Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 42

3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 43

3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants -------------------------- 45

3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------- 48

3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------ 3-50

3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB

Propellants ------------------------------------------ 3-52

3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations --------- 54

3-21 BATES-Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant ---- 3-59

3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant ---- 3-61

3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Level Variations ----- 3-66

3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (2 Ballistic Modifier) ------------------- 3-68

3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation ---------- 3-70

3-26 BATES Motor Test Data Summary AN-71 Propellant ------ 3-72

3-27 AN4APAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goals --------------------------------------------- 3-75

3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests -Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------ 3-76

3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-77

3-30 ANHMXHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX) --------------- 3-79

3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------------ 3-81

3-32 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHNXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-82

xii

3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests ----------------------------------------shy 3-83

3-34 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) ------------------------------shy 3-85

3-35 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX) -----------------------------shy 3-87

3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)-----------shy 3-90

3-37 ANHNXADHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation ----------------------------- 3-91

3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX DOA Plasticizer)------------- 3-94

3-39 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX IDP Plasticizer)------------- 3-95

3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Particle Size Variation (MX) ------- ------------------------- 3-97

3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - BallisticModifier Particle Size Variation ------------------------------ 3-99

3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-101

3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data --------------------------------- 3-103

3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A With Class E)---------------------------------------- 3104

3-45 ANHMXAPAiHTPB Formulation - HMX Level (Class E HMX) ---------------------------------------- 3-106

t46-PL Hazard Test Data (Class E)----------------------- 3-107

M3-47 NOS Space ShuttleAlternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation ----------------------- 3-109

3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured -------- 3-111

3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

ANHMXAPHTPB Propellant Type ----------------------- 3-113

3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant ---- 3-119

3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-33 Propellant ---- 3-122

3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-18 Propellant ---- 3-126

xiii

3-53 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties-vs Goal ----------------------------------- 3-128

3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend --------------------------- --------------------- 3-129

xiv

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

This report presents results from the JPL study to investigatethe feasibility of developing an acceptable alternate propellant systemfor the Shuttle solid rocket motor (SEM) boosters based on the non-chlorine containing oxidizer ammonium nitrate (AN) The following basic criteria for this Phase 0 feasibility study were established by the NASA-MSFC

(1) A five-month feasibility study would be undertaken

(2) Any candidate propellants must conform to a hazards classishyfication of Class 2 as determined by card gap tests

(3) The propellant exhaust must not contain more than 3 HC Zero HCl was to be the goal

Following the above guidelines the JPL began a Phase Zero fiveshymonth feasibility program in September of 1974 (Ref 1) JPL was directedby MSFC to investigate four basic propellant systems mutually agreed upon by MSFC and JPL These four basic propellant systems were the following

(1) AN20 Albinder

(2) AN10 Albinder

(3) AN5 AP20 Albinder

(4) AN5 AP10 Albinder

Toward the end of the Phase 0 program the above four basic proshypellants had been developed to a point of scale-up of each formulation to 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes loading and test firing of 227-kg(5-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests Programresults at this point had demonstrated that

(1) Good processability of an 88 solids loaded ammonium nitrate propellant was possible (Previous to this workthe maximum solids achieved with ammonium nitrate systems was approximately 80)

(2) A few percent (5 to 10) of ammonium perchlorate as a co-oxidizer in the ammonium nitrate systems was essential to satisfactory aluminum combustion

(3) An aluminum content of 20 in the ammonium nitrate system was considerably above optimum for maximum delivered specific impulse

With these results serving as new guidelines a fifth formulation was developed and evaluated in BATES motor tests This propellant formulation

1-1

was an 88 solids formulation of the following composition 63 AN10 AP15 Al12 HTPB binder

The main conclusion drawn from the results of this five-month feasibility study was that with the necessary time and funds the develshyopment of an alternate propellant system for the Shuttle SRM based largely on ammonium nitrate as the oxidizer was feasible The fifth propellant described above was selected as a baseline candidate system and served as the basis for establishing the goals and criteria for a Phase I follow-on effort to this feasibility study

The concept for the utilization of the alternate propellant was a dual propellant solid rocket motor -The Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor would be manufactured containing the alternate low-HCl propellant first as an outer layer of propellant followed by an inner layer of the current PBAN propellant modified to the new burning rate requirement During a Shuttle vehicle launch the baseline PBAN propellant would burn for the first phase of Shuttle Booster operation At an altitude of approxshyimately 1981 km (65000 ft) the PBAN propellant would be expended and the burning transitioned into the low-HCl (less than 3 by weight of the exhaust products) alternate propellant The feasibility of a satisshyfactory transition from a propellant with an all-ammonium perchlorate oxidizer to one consisting primarily of ammonium nitrate oxidizer was also demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by successfully manufacshyturing and test firing a dual propellant BATES motor charge

1-2

SECTION II

SUMMARY

This summary is a general over-view of the Alternate Propellant Program A more detailed summary of each respective area of effort is included in the main body of this report The primary objective of the program was to develop a candidate alternate propellant for the Shuttle SRM boosters which would eliminate or minimize the HCl in the exhaust from the solid propellant boosters during operations above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude A set of program constraints was defined to serve as guidelines for the Phase I program effort Among the constraints was the requirements of a Class 2 hazards classification for any candidate propellant The detailed constraints have been outlined in the foregoing pages Along with these program guidelines specific goals were estabshylished that were as follows

(1) Propellant burning rate = 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) Propellant pressure exponent of the burning rate lt 042

(3) Vacuum delivered specific impulse gt 2402 N-skg (245 s) at an expansion ratio of 716

(4) Matched burning rates of the alternate propellant and the baseline PBAN propellant system at 400 Ncm2 (580 psia)

(5) HCl content of the propellant exhaust lt 3

Goal (4) also introduced the requirement of modifying the burning rate of the existing Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a burning rate requirement consistent with the foregoing goals for the alternate proshypellant The burning rate requirement for the modified Shuttle baseline propellant PBAN propellant was established to be 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) chamber pressure

Three basic propellant systems were defined as candidate systems to be developed within these constraints and guidelines The three systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

Based on the results from the Phase 0 program that preceded this Phase I program it was established that the aluminum content would be held constant at 15 wt in all formulations Also the AP content of the No 1 and No 3 system was to be 10 A status summary of each of the three alternate propellant systems and the modified PBAN Shuttle baseline propellant follows

2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPAlHTPB

This propellant system contains 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) and 15 aluminum powder The development has progressed through the static testing of 32-kg (70-1b) propellant charges in the BATES motor static testing being limited to sea level conditions A vacuum delivered Isp at an expansion ratio eof 70 corrected from the sea level data of 2281 N-skg (2326 s) has been demonstrated This measured value of Is is equivalent to 888 of the theoretical value at the test condiions A burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) of 0546 cms (0215 ins) with a pressure exponent of the burning rate of 0278 has also been demonstrated with BATES motor firings As can be seen the Isp and burning rate goals have not been attained whereas the pressure exponent goal has been exceeded by a considerable margin It is doubtful at this point whether the Isp or the burning rate goals can be achieved with this basic system within the present program conshystraints One way of achieving the ballistic goals would be to increase the AP content of this propellant To do so however would increase the HC content of the exhaust above that of the current exhaust conshystraint of not more than 3 wt of HC1

In order to meet the specific impulse and burning rate goals a propellant formulation containing 20 wt of AP was developed and tested first in 45-kg (10-1b) motors followed by two 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings The specific impulse goal of 2402 N-hkg (245 s) was attained with this propellant The burning rate at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) exceeded the 089-cms (035-ins) goal A burning rate of 097 cms (038 ins) was measured The pressure exponent measure was 048 which is higher than the goal However it is believed that this pressure exponent can be reduced The HC1 content in the exhaust at an expansion ratio of 716 is calculated to be 6 wt This 6 HC1 still represents an 80 reduction in the HC1 content from that of the baseline PBAN propellant system The-hazards classification of the ANAPA1HTPB system is Class 2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXA1HTPB

This system contains 15 aluminum also but no AP Due to a cutback in projected program funds however thedecision was made to discontinue the development of this system This decision was made very early in the development phase of this propellant and therefore no useful ballistic data is available at this time

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB

Of the three alternate propellant systems initially planned for development this system is the best candidate to date for meeting all the program goals Theoretical calculations showed that the maximum specific impulse for this propellant system was in the range of 170 to 175 HMX (Table 3-2) Therefore this system with three levels of HMX was developed scaled up to 113-kg (250-1b) mixes and loaded and test fired in 45-kg (10-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b)

2-2

BATES motor firing Of the three levels of HMX evaluated in motor firing the highest ISD was measured with the formulation containing 15 wt HMX showing that the experimental optimum HMX level- is somewhat less than 17 wt for this system The 15 and 17 wt HMX formulations were demonstrated to be Class 2 whereas the 175 wt HMX propellant was borderline Class 7

Preliminary results from Crawford Bomb burning rates showed a burning rate of 0950 cms (0374 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) for the 17 wt HMX formulation Time did not permit verifying this burning rate in motor tests prior to committing to the scale-up and loading of the 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors However indications -were that the 089-cms (035-ins) burning rate would be achieved in motor tests with 3 ballistic modifier in the formulation -- a cutback from the 4 in the other two HMX formulations In the interest of time a reduction in the ballistic modifier (a mixed burning rate catalyst) of 1 was made in the scale-up propellant batch from which the BATES motors were loaded Unfortunately this was too large a reduction in modifier and test results from firing the BATES motors showed a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) for the 17 wt HMX formulation (ANH-33)

The formulations of the five candidate alternate propellants and the modified PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 2-1 Table 2-2 lists the theoretical ballistic properties of the six propelshylants and also the HCi and A1203 (particulates) contents Table 2-3 summarizes the measured performance values as determined by BATES motor firings The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions with nozzle expansion ratios of 716 The measured sea level values were then corrected to vacuum values by the following equation

PeAe I vac ms =-I5 pact ms

D SYSTEM NO i MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE

The work statement of this Alternate Propqllant Program also called for modifying the current Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) while not changing the major ballistic properties such as I__ of the system This effort has been completed and the 081-cms (032-ins) burning rate met and demonstrated in motor firings The desired modification was accomplished by removing the iron oxide burningshyrate catalysts (Fe203 ) and adjusting the particle size blend of the oxidizer The burning-rate equation for this modified baseline is r = 00668 Pc0 228

A detailed discussion of the three candiate alternate propellant systems as well as the total program effort follows

2-3

Ingredients

Solids

AN

AP

HMX (Class E)

Al

Fe203

AD

CU-0202 P

Binder

HTPBe

PBANd

Table 2-1 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

TP-H1148a AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

86 88 88 88 88 88

-- 5900 5100 44o0 4300 4150

6960 1000 2000 1000 1000 1000

-- -- -- 1500 1700 1750

1600 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

040 b -- -- -- -shy

-- 200 -- 200 100 200

-- 200 200 200 200 200

-- 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

1400 -- -- -shy

aCurrent Shuttle baseline propellant also to be adjusted

bTo be adjusted

CCured with a diisocyanate (IPDI)

dCured with an epoxy (Der-331)

Table 2-2 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Parameter TP-H1148 AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Tf K 3471 2695 2845 2748 2765 2756

Te K

C ms (fts)

Isp0 N-skg (s)

2327

1371 (5155)

25723 (2623)

1563

1481 (4860)

24203 (2468)

1678

1568 (4949)

24624 (2511)

1570

1505 (4937)

24507 (2499)

1575

1513 (4965)

24634 (2512)

1571

1509 (4950)

24556 (2504)

U Is vac (a E 716)N-skg (s)

27135 (2767)

25684 (2619)

26115 (2663)

26007 (2652)

26144 (2666)

26066 (2658)

HC in exhaust 209 303 61 303 303 303

A1203 in exhaust 302 283 283 283 283 28

Table 2-3 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Ballistic Property

Program Goal

AN-25

Candidate Propellant Test Resultsa

AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

C ms (fts) - 1432 1460 1450 1431 1415

(4700) (4791) (4759) (4694) (4643)

C efficiency - 953 972 962 945 945

Isp vac at E = 716 N-skg (s)

_gt2403 (245)

22849 (2330)

24026 (2450)

23752 (2422)

23183 (2364)

23173 (2363)

Isp efficiency 888 923 912 887 8901

Burning rate cms at 690 Ncm2 (ins at 1000 psia)

gt_089 (035)

053 (021)

097 (0 38 )b

079 (031)

081 (032)

074 (029)

Pressure exponent n lt042 028 048 031 037 031

Hazard

classification 2 2 2 2 2 7 (marginal)

aTest data from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings at PC 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

bData point based on 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

SECTION III

PHASE I PROGRAM

A OBJECTIVE

The program objective of the Phase I program the results of which are documented in this report was to develop an alternate propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster motors which would eliminate or minimize the H1 in the exhaust from the motors

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS

The Phase I development effort was conducted within some very specific constraints These program constraints were

(1) Minimize the design impact on the present solid booster

(2) Eliminate or minimize Llt 3) the HC1 release from the booster motors during operation above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude

(3) Any candidate alternate propellant must confori to a Class 2 hazards classification

(4) The program was to be conducted within government as a contingency

(5) The payload schedule and cost impact of the Phase I effort on the Shuttle project were to be assessed concurrently

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS

Three basic pandidate propellant systems were selected for consideration in this development program These propellant systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

In addition to the above three completely new propellant systems a modification of the current baseline PBAN propellant was to be made This modification consisted of adjusting the burning rate of the PBAN propellant to a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) [The baseline PBAN propellant burning rate was approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)]

3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA

As has been stated the criteria for the Phase I program effort was established as a result of the Phase 0 feasibility study The scope of effort and propellant performance goals thus established were as follows

(1) Initiate the development of three basic candidate alternate propellant systems

(2) Modify the current Shuttle baseline PHAN propellant to meet

the new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins)

(3) The propellant performance goals were

(a) Burning rate = 689 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(b) Pressure exponent lt 042

(c) Delivered vacuum specific impulse at an expansion ratio of 716 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(d) Theburning rates of the candidate alternate propellants and the Shuttle baseline PBAN propellant should be matched at a pressure of 400 Ncm 2 (580 psia)

(e) HCI in the exhaust _ 3

(4) The development program was to include in addition to - the above

(a) Processing studies

(b) Physical property studies

(c) ropellant aging studies

(d) Propellant hazards classification testing

(e) Propellant performance testing

(f) Investigation of the compatibility between the alternate propellant and the current baseline PBAN propellant and between the alternate propellant and the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) insulation

E PROGRAM APPROACH

The following outline details the general approach taken in the investigation of the various aspects of this program

3-2

1 Theoretical Studies

() Maximize delivered specific impulse at 88 solids

(a) Aluminum content

(b) HMX content

(c) High-energy plasticizer content (TMETN)

2 Burning Rate Studies 089 cms (035 ins) Goal

(1) Particle size blend of oxidizer

(2) Investigate and compare catalyst type and concentration

(a) Fe203

(b) Ferrocene

(c) Milori blue

(d) CU-0202 P shy

(e) Inert plasticizer level (DOA)

(f) High-energy plasticizer (TMETN)

(g) HMX

(h) Zirconium powder

(i) Other

Burning rates to be determined via Crawford Bomb strand burning and 5 x 6 motor tests

3 Physical Property Studies

(1) Binder stoichiometry

(2) Plasticizer level and type

(a) Free plasticizer

(b) Internal plasticizer (chemically bonded)

(3) Degree of crosslinking

(4) Cure time and temperature

3-3

Evaluate properties Tensile strength

Elongation

Modulus

Hardness

Density

4 Processing Studies

(1) Process variables

(a) Mixer speeds

(b) Mix duration

(c) Ingredient addition sequence

(d) Other

5 Compatibility Studies

(1) PBAN propellant to alternate propellant bond

(a) As cured surfaces

(b) Machined surfaces

(2) Alternate propellant to insulation bond

6 Safety Hazard Tests

(I) Card gap

(2) Impact

(3) Auto-ignition shy

(4) Blast~ng cap

(5) Friction sensitivity

(6) Spark sensitivity

3-4

7 Aging Studies

(1) Propellant aging-physical properties

(a) Ambient temperature

(2) Propellant-propellant bond

(a) Ambient temperature

8 Motor Testing

(1) 5 x 6 motors - pressure only

(2) BATES motors - pressure and thrust

9 Shuttle Baseiine Propellant Modification

Adjust burning rate to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

F NOS PARTICIPATION

The Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head Maryland wLs funded by JPL to participate in certain aspects of the Alternate Propellant Program This funding of the NOS was a relatively low level of funding and designed to support the program through the investigation of certain very specific tasks The general areas of the NOS participation were

(1) Investigation of the solubility of the high-energy plasticizer TMETN in (a) R-45 HTPB polymer and (b) R-45 HTPB polymerDOA plasticizer

(2) Determine the limits of TMETN for a Class 2 propellant in an (a) all AN propellant system (b) ANAP system and (c) ANAPHMX system

(3) Investigation of the limits of HMX Ior a Class 2 inert binder propellent

(4) Hazards testing of candidate propellant formulations

(5) Investigation of HMX and AP particle size ef~eots and ballistic modifier effects on candidate propellant ballistics

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE

The Phase I effort of the Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program began April 1 1975 as an 18-month program The program schedule was later revised and lengthened to a 30-month program Much later in the program (April 1976) following several revisions to the program

3-5

schedule the planned scope of effort was reduced and the schedule cut to

conclude the program on June 30 1976 This reduction in scope and schedule

time became necessary due to a cut in the anticipated program funds

H DISCUSSION

Theoretical Studies

As has been discussed in the introduction to this report the Phase 0 feasibility study (Ref 1) results established the basis for

the Phase I effort Theoretical studies had been conducted during the Phase 0 work analyzing the effects of solids loading oxidizer ratios

binder composition etc on the thermoballistic properties of the proshy

pellant types under consideration Therefore at the start of the Phase I

program effort the guidelines for formulating the candidate alternate propellants to be developed were fairly well defined Consequently the

theoretical studies reported here involved only formulations with certain

constant parameters such as 88 total solids 15 aluminum and a binder based on plasticized HTPB

Table 3-1 gives summary tabulations of the primary thermoballistic properties of a number of candidate formulations containing AN AP and

HMX as oxidizers and the binder plasticized with the high-energy plasticizer

TMETN Iron oxide at the 1 level was included as a burning rate modifier The relevant Shuttle SRM baseline PBAN propellant properties are also shown in the table for reference As can be seen the formulation containing 25 HMX 10 AP and 25 TMETN plasticizer in the binder (12 HTPB binder) matches within 49 N-skg (05-s) specific impulse to that of the Shuttle baseline propellant That formulation however would be a Class 7 proshy

pellant and therefore could not be considered as a candidate

Table 3A2 shows the effects of varying the AP content the HMX conshy

tent and the type and content of the burning rate modifiers A combination

of ammonium dichromate (AD) and copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was selected

as the primary burning rate modifiers for this work Approximately two seconds of impulse difference is calculated for equal amounts of Fe203 and mixed AD and CU-0202 P (4 Fe203 versus 2 AD and 2 CU-0202 P) The calculations also show that for the 88 total solids system with 15 aluminum and 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) tpe theoretical optimum amount of HMX for maximum impulse is in the range of 17 to 175 The

experimental optimum HMX level for maximum delivered IsD however

appears to be something less than 17 wt This is eviaenced by the results from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests of propellants containing 150 170 and 175 HMX The measured ballistics of these formulations

are tabulated in Table 2-3 in the summary section of this report As will be seen in Table 2-3 the highest measured Isp with an HMX formulation

was with FormulationNumber ANH-12 which contains 150 HMX

These theoretical calculations referred to above were made using

a JPL computer program based on the minimization of free energy to

calculate both the equilibrium and frozen flow thermoballistic properties

of chemical compositions

3-6

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN

Formulationa Ballistics

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

AN AP HIX Al

TMETN in

Binder Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P T0 K C

ms (fts)

T (Sea Lcve Optimum) N-skg (s)

Vac 1 (c = 7)

N-skg (a)

Shuttle PBAN Baseline Propellantb(Density 17714 gcm 3 00640 lbin3) 3515 1578 (5176) 25752 (2626) 27136 k2767)

62 10 0 15 0 1 2825 1503 (4931) 24536 (2502) 25966 (2648)

62 10 0 15 10 1 2902 1511 (4956) 24674 (2516) 26095 (2661)

62 10 0 15 20 1 2977 1518 (4980) 24791 (2528) 26213 (2673)

62 10 0 15 25 1 2982 1521 (4991) 24850 (2534) 26272 (2679)

62 0 10 15 20 1 2910 1526 (5005) 24870 (2536) 26321 (2684)

52 0 20 15 20 1 2973 1546 (5072) 25174 (2567) 26645 (2717)

47 0 25 15 20 1 3005 1557 (5108) 25321 (2582) 26900 (2743)

62 0 10 15 25 1 2916 1529 (5016) 24929 (2542) 26380 (2690)

52 0 20 15 25 1 2978 1550 (5084) 25233 (257 ) 26704 (2723)

47 0 25 15 25 1 3010 1561 (5120) 25380 (2588) 26860 (2739)

52 10 10 15 10 1 2964 1532 (5028) 24968 (2546) 26419 (2694)

42 10 20 15 10 1 3027 1554 (5100) 25272 (2577) 26753 (2728)

37 10 25 15 10 1 3658 1565 (5136) 25419 (2592) 26909 (2744)

52 10 10 15 20 1 3039 1540 (5052) 25095 (2559) 26519 (2706)

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN (Continuation 1)

Formulationa Ballistics -

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier TMETN Is (Sea Vac L

in C Level Optimum) (E = 7 AN AP HMX Al Binder Fe203 AD CU-0202 P Tc K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

42 10 20 15 20 1 3102 1562 (5124) 25399 (2590) 26870 (2740)

37 10 25 15 20 1 3134 1573 (5160) 25546 (2605) 27037 (2757)

52 10 10 15 25 1 3044 1543 (5063) 25154 (2565) 26596 (2712)

42 10 20 15 25 1 3107 1565 (5135) 25448 (2595) 26929 (2746)

37 10 25 15 25 1 3138 1576 (5171) 25595 (2610) 27086 (2762)

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

bThe Shuttle baseline propellant has 16 Al 86$ total solids

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN

Formulation ballistics

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids)

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Pc = 690 Ncm

2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Moaifier

DensitygcM3

(lbin3 ) AN AP HMX Al

PropellantFormulation

No Fe2 0q AD CU-0202 P To K

C

Ms (fts)

Is (SeaLevel Optimum)

N-skg (s)

Vac ISp(E 7)

N-skg (s)

16634 (00601) 62 10 - 15 1 2728 1500 (4920) 24468 (2495) 25950 (2647)

0 16717 (00604) 61 10 - 15 2 2716 1490 (4887) 24320 (2480) 25801 (2631)

16800 (00607) 56 15 - 15 2 2778 1497 (4913) 24438 (2492) 25929 (2644)

16911 (00611) 51 20 - 15 2 2839 1505 (4938) -24566 (2505) 26046 (2656)

16994 (00614) 46 25 - 15 2 2904 1512 (4962) 24674 (2516) 26164 (2668)

17105 (00618) 41 30 - 15 2 2969 1519 (4985) 24791 (252b) 26282 (2680)

17188 (00621) 36 35 - 15 2 3032 1526 (5007) 24899 (2539) 24390 (2691)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 4 2692 1469 (4820) 24016 (2449) 25478 (2598)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 (AN-25) - 2 2 2695 1481 (4860) 24203 (2468) 25684 (2619)

16745 (0n605) 51 20 - 15 - 2 2841 1513 (4965) 24693 (2518) 26194 (26741)

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 1)

Pl1si~sFormulitiona

Theoreticl Equilibrium Flow Calculations = Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant IS (Sea Vac I gcm3 Formulation C Love Optimum) (c = 7) (lbin 3 ) AN PP HmX Pi No Fe20q AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg ()

16911 (00611) 51 20 15 (AN-71) 2 2845 1508 (4949) 24624 (2511) 26115 (266-)

16828 (00608) 51 20 15 1 1 2841 1511 (4957) 24654 (2514) 26145 (2666)

17160 (00620) 44 10 15 15 4 2748 1492 (4895) 24320 (2480) 25811 (2632)

17216 (00622) 42 10 17 15 4 2756 1495 (4906) 24360 (2484) 25850 (263b)

- ) 415 10 175 15 4 2581 1500 (4921) 25850 (2636)

) 40 10 190 15 4 2794 1495 (4906) 257b2 (2629)

39 10 200 15 4 2776 1490 (4888) 25723 (2623)

17049 (00616) 44 10 15 15 (ANH-12) - 2 2 2748 1504 (4937) 24507 (2499) 2007 (2652)

17077 (00617) 42 10 17 15 2 2 2754 1508 (4947) 24546 (2503) 26056 (2657)

17049 (00616) 4 10 17 15 (ANH-33) 1 2 2765 1513 (4965) 24634 (2512) 26145 (2666)

L

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 2)

BallisticsFormulations

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant is (Sea Vac Is gcm3 Formulation C Level Optimum) M (ibin3 ) AN AP HMX Al No Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

16828 (00608) 44 10 17 15 - - 2779 1525 (5005) 24781 (2527) 26311 (2683)

16994 (00614) 44 10 17 15 - 2 2784 1518 (4981) 24723 (2521) 26243 (2676)

16911 (00611) 44 10 17 15 - 1 1 2778 1522 (4994) 24752 (2524) 26272 (2679)

17077 1509 (4950) 24556 (2504) 26066 (2658)(00617) 415 10 175 15 (ANH-18) - 2 2 2757

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

2 Exhaust Products

The exhaust compositions of the five candidate propellants listed in Table 2-I in the report summary and that of the Shuttle PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 3-3 The exhaust species are shown as weight percent of the total exhaust and the exhaust composition is that at the exit plane of the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 716 calculated as the equilibrium composition

3 Combustion and Burning Rate

Two problems which were anticipated and confirmed as problems early in the Phase 0 program were low combustion efficiency and low burning rates of the aluminized ammonium nitrate propellant These subjects are discussed individually in the sections covering the different propellant systems However a few brief general comments will be made here

It was demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by way of 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings that a few percent of AP was essential in the ammonium nitrate propellants in order to effect satisfactory combustion of aluminum An 88 solids 15 Al ammonium nitrate formulation containing no AP was test fired in several 227-kg (5-1b) test motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors In each case large amounts of aluminum slag remained in the motors after firing Molten aluminum could be seen being ejected through the nozzle during the test firings Greatly improved combustion resulted from incorporating 5 AP in the formulation The incorporation of 10 AP resulted in virtually zero slag remaining in the motor Therefore 10 AP was selected as a standard for this Alternate Propellant Program The three photographs of BATES motor tests (Figs 3-1 to 3-3 containing 0 5 and 10 AP respectively in the formulations) show rather dramatically the effect of AP on the combustion The glowing streams in the 0 and 5 AP firings (greatly reduced in the 5 AP test however) are produced by molten aluminum

A second technique investigated as a combustion improvement techshynique was the incorporation of zirconium metal powder into the propellant The basis for this idea was due to the fact that zirconium powder has a much lower ignition temperature than that of aluminum powder and has a relatively high heat of combustion The idea was to take advantage of this lower ignition temperature of zirconium powder to facilitate the ignition and burning of the aluminum by igniting and burning and thereby supplying sufficient added heat to the system to more effectively ignite and burn the aluminum This technique however did not demonstrate any real improvement in the measured performance but rather a decrease and was therefore not investigated beyond the initial BATES motor test firings

3-12

Table 3-3 Propellant Exhaust Comsition

Propellant PBAN AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Solids 86 88 88 88 88 88 AP 6960 10 20 10 10 10 HMX - - - 15 17 175

Tel K 2327 1563 1678 1570 1575 1571

MoI Wt of Products 2756 2309 2360 2285 2275 2281

Speciesa wt

AlCl 00094 - - - -AIC10 00086 - - - shy

-A1C12 00098 - - -

AICI3 00053 - - - shy-AlHO2 00012 - - -

Cl 02961 - 00007 - -

CO 232928 189953 191619 256367 264700 267944 39486 61302 58679 46105 44899 42773CO2

Cr203(L) - 10020 02090 10020 06050 10020 Cu - 00038 00184 00044 00044 00044 CuC(L) - 14543 11840 14513 14475 14513 CUM - 00891 04188 00901 00940 00901

-Fe 00134 - - -

FeC12 05998 00621 00621 00596 00583 00583 H 00191 00001 00002 00001 00001 00001 H2 18804 29663 27301 32744 32941 33221

aCl 209284 30346 60149 30357 30346 30357 HO 00321 - 00002 - -

H20 101499 154534 157204 95971 91721 86539 85862 221739 203436 225998 228954 226707N2

NH3 - 00905 00003 00005 00005 00005 NO 00018 05780 - - shy

0 00005 shy02 00003 - - shy

A1203(C) 302097 283418 283418 283418 283418 283418

aConcentrations less than 1 x I0-5 moles100 g exhaust are omitted

L = liquid C = crystalline

3-13

ft

iI

Figure 3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

Imm

Figure 3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5$ AP in ANAPA1HTPB

go

Figure 3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

A third technique investigated was that of using a chromate-coated aluminum powder in place of the standard aluminum powder This techniquealso failed to produce increased combustion efficiency of the aluminum in the propellant

Specific burning rate subjects are discussed in the discussions of the different propellant systems however some general comments will be made here As can be seen in Table 3-2 the proper selection of a burning rate catalyst must be based on more than burning-rate considerations when a rigorous effort is made to maximize specific impulse As can be seen a significant difference is calculated for the theoretical Isp between incorporating the different burning rate modifiers at the same concentration Also the modifier used can have a strong effect on the physical properties of the propellant

4 Physical Properties

This effect of specific ingredients on the physical properties of an ammonium nitrate system arises from the fact that chemical reactions other than the normal curing reactions between the prepolymer and the curing agent enter into the overall curing reactions In most compositepropellant systems the physical properties are determined largely -in addition to binder type and solids loading by the degree of crosslinkingand completeness of reactions with available cure site6 In the ammonium nitrate system however it appears that free protons produced in the system react with the double bond in the prepolymer (HTPH) backbone causing crosslinks at these sites Ammonium dichromate appears to contribute in a greater way to this crosslinking at the double bonds than some of the other burning-rate modifiers investigated On the other hand the AD subtracts less from the calculated Isp The formulating and development of an AN system therefore is complicated by these considerations The physical property problems are greatly complicated Nonconventional techniques must be found and employed in the physical property considerations in order to develop satisfactory control of adequate physical properties

5 High-Energy Plasticizer Studies

One of the approaches investigated on the program was use of high-energy plasticizers td achieve higher delivered specific impulse propellants A review of available nitrate ester plasticizers indicated that TMETN (111-trimethylolethane trinitrate) was the most promising candidate This selection was made on the basis of overall considerations of compatibility performance cost and availability Theoretical performance calculations on some typical propellant formulations with 20 wt TMETN are shown in Table 3-4

Propellant development work on this effort was done by NOS (NavalOrdnance Station Indian Head Md) Two basic formulations were inshyvestigated one with no ammonium perchlorate and one with 5 wt ammonium perchlorate A polyester (R-18) binder was selected and initial development work was done at the 82 wt solids level with 1200 wt TMETN Small

3-17

Table 3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations

Formulation 1-A

Ammonium nitrate 360 Aluminum 180 R-18 60 HMX 100 TMETN 200 Ammonium perchlorate 100

1000

Density gcm3 17300 (lbin3 ) (00625)

Flame temperature 34314 K (OF) (5723)

Vacuum specific 27115 impulse N-skg (s) (2765) E = 716

Pc 483 Ncm2

(700 psi)

Weight percent 278 HC1 in exhaust

1-B

310 180 60 100 200 150

1000

17411 (00629)

3481 (5806)

27155 (2769)

417

1-C 1-D

410 410 180 180 60 60 50 -

200 200 100 150

1000 1000

17217 17244 (00622) (00623)

3410 3430 (5678) (5714)

26988 26880 (2752) (2741)

278 416

3-18

mixes were made to check ingredient compatibility and propellant laboratorysafety properties Results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-5 along with the formulations These tests indicated that the ingredients were compatible and safety properties were adequate The two formulations were then scaled up into larger batches and card gap samples were loaded and tested Both formulations were uncastable so that the card gapsamples had to be hand packed The card gap test results are shown in Table 3-5 and suggest both formulations meet the card gap requirementsfor Class 2 propellant (lt 70 cards) However these results may be biased to give lower card gap sensitivity because of voids in the samples

Four additional formulations were then evaluated at the reduced solids level of 74 wt to improve propellant castability The polyester(R-18) binder system was used and TMETN level was held constant at 20 wt The variations made with these four formulations were variations in the levels of HMX AP and AN All the formulations were eastable and card gap samples were prepared and tested on each The details of the formulations and card gap test results are summarized in Table 3-6 General conclusion from this work was that for this propellant systemwith 20 wt TMETN a maximum level of 5 to 10 wt HMX can be used and meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

Work with the polyester (R-18) binder system was terminated and shifted to the HTPB (R-45) binder system when the early experimentalwork indicated that program goals would probably not be achieved with the polyester (R-18) Initial tests by NOS showed the solubility of TMETN (also referred to as MTN) in R-45 at 210 C (700F) was less than 1 wt They then conducted cosolubility studies with other plasticizersComplete details of these studies are shown in Appendix A Summary conclusions from this effort are as follows

(1) R-18 and adiponitrile are not soluble in R-45M

(2) DOA is more effective as a coplasticizer than TP90B and PPG-1225

(3) Maximum theoretical performance gains possible by replaceshyment of DOA with TMETN within solubility limits are about 176 N-skg (18-s) impulse and 0028 gcm 3 (O001 lbin 3 ) density

A decision was made to terminate further work with TMETN at this point in the program Primary reason for the decision was that the small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justifythe potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradation

6 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrates

An evaluation of available ammonium nitrate (AN) types was made to provide a basis for selection of the AN in development of the propellant formulations Ammonium nitrate is the major oxidizer used in all

3-19

Table 3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations with TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids)

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder TMETN Aluminum HMX Ammonium perchlorate Ammonium nitrate

Initial card gap tests

0 Cards 35 Cards 50 Cards

70 Cards

Laboratory safety tests

Impact mm (3 consecutive positive values 5-kg weight)

Sliding friction kg (ib) 24 ms (8 fts)

Electrostatic discharge- J

(5000 V)

NOS SCC-74-69 NOS SCC-74-074

600 600 1200 1200 1800 1800 2000 1000 - 500

4400 4900

10000 10000

-pos

pos pos pos neg neg

150 -125 150 200

gt-435 (gt_960) 435 ( 960) A35 (gt_960)

gt435 (gt960)

2125 125 gt125 L125

3-20

Table 3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids)

Formulation No NOS Mod I NOS Mod II NOS 1C NOS ID

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder -600 600 600 600 TMETN 2000 2000 2000 2000 Aluminum 1800 1800 1800 1800 HMX 2000 2000 -500 Ammonium perchlorate - 500 1000 1500 Ammonium nitrate 3600 3100 4100 4100

10000 10000 IbO00 10000

No 8 Blasting Cap neg neg -

Test

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards -shy pos 40 Cards pos neg

(42 cards) 50 Cards pos pos neg 60 Cards neg 65 Cards pos 70 Cards pos neg neg 75 Cards pos -

80 Cards pos - -

85 Cards - Ipos and I neg - -

90 Cards 2 pos - -

100 Cards pos I pos and I neg - -

112 Cards pos - -

120 Cards pos neg - -

121 Cards 1 pos and 2 neg - -

123 Cards neg - - -

125 Cards neg 150 Cards neg

3-21

three of the basic alternate propellants ANAPAlHTPB ANHMXAlHTBP

and ANHMXAPAlHTPB

Some of the problems associated with making propellants with AN are

(1) Low true density of AN (1725 gcm3 ) which limits solids loading for processable propellants

(2) Large size and hollowness of unground as-received prills

(3) Hygroscopicity of AN and particle agglomeration

(4) Slow burning rates

(5) Low specific impulse

(6) Volumetric changes with crystal phase changes

The following three types of AN were selected for evaluation

(1) Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated

(2) U S Agri-Chemicals industrial with anti-caking agent

(3) Monsanto industrial E-2 phase stabilized

These three were selected because they are generally representative of what is currently available from industry Table 3-7 compares the as-received properties of the three AN types Table 3-8 compares some of the processing characteristics of the three AN types

The Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated has the advantage of having no additives that generally tend to reduce propellant specific impulse However this AN has a soft prill that breaks readily and is very hygroscopic Both the unground and ground materials agglomerate severely even in controlled environments These difficulties in controlling particle-size distribution with this type AN pose real problems in achieving and reproducing maximum specific impulse and burning rate in processable propellants Cost of this type AN is higher than the other two types because it is a specialty product

The U S Agri-Chemicals industrial AN has a 043 to 077 wt coating of anticaking agent on the prills The coating consists of 90 talc and 10 Petro-Ag It keeps the material free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture In addition it makes a harder prill which does not break readily Good control of particle-size distribution is possible with this type of AN Consequently processable propellants are achievable with reproducible burning rates and delivered specific impulse

3-22

Oc Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received PropertiesTable 3-7

Vendor

ltC7

Type

Appearance

Total nitrogen

Approx assay

Moisture (when manufactured)

to Additive

Screen size (US Sieve Series)

Loose bulk density gcm3

3)(lbft

Prill Density gcm3

Approx cost kg (lb)

aphase stabilized

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticakang Agent)

White prills

None

254 (115)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

industrial (Coated with Anticaking Agent)

White free-flowing spheres

(prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

025 wt min

043 to 077 wt $ coating bagent

00 wt max retained on No 6 50 wt $ max through No 6 and on a No 8 940 wt max through No 6 and on No 20 10 wt max through No 20

154

154 (7 0 )d

Monsanto Agricultural Products Co

inoustrial E-2

Pearly white free-flowing

spheres (prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

05 wt min

04 to 06 wt E-2 additive c

10 wt max retained on No 6 100 wt through No 14

09611 (60)

161

a157 (71

b90 tale and 10 petroleum agent eMgo according to US Patent 3030179

taxesdBulk costs - carload quantities typically 54431-kg (60-ton) minimum Does not include freight or

Table 3-8

Property

Handling characteristics to unground

Particle size after tumble drying unground

Grinding characteristics particle size after coarse grinding in Raymond hammer mill with 4000-rpm hammer speed 160-rpm feed speed 032-cm (18-in) screen

Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticaking Agent)

Soft prill breaks easily Very hygroscopic and agglom-

erates severely

104 to 1000 pm

480 pm (avg)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

Industrial (Coated with Anttcaking Agent)

Fairly hard prill does not break readily Remains free

flowing with reasonable pro-tection from moisture

840 to 3360 pm

2200 pm (avg)

140 um (avg)

Monsanto AgraculLural Products Co

Industrial E-2 (Phase-Stabilized)

Very hard and dense prill does not bread readily

Remains free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture

1410 to 3360 pm

2000 pm (avg)

2bO pm (avg)

The Monsanto industrial E-2 phase-stabilized AN has 04-to 06 wt E-2 additive This material is MgO which pbase stabilizes-the ammonium nitrate according to U S Patent 3030179 (assigned to Monsanto Company) Figure 3-4 shows the specific volume of Monsanto E-2 AN and of AN that has not been phase stabilized versus temperature The solid line is for the Monsanto E-2 AN and the dotted line is for the AN that has not been phase stabilized Note that the volumetric changes associated with Phase III have been eliminated in the phase-stabilizedMonsanto E-2 AN Comparing Monsanto E-2 AN with the other types inTable 3-7 and 3-8 the following conclusions can be made

(1) Monsanto E-2 AN has a higher prill density than U S Agri-Chemicals AN (161 gcm3 versus 154 gcm3 )

(2) Because Monsanto E-2 is a very hard anddense prill normal handling and tumble drying does not significantly break prills Particle-size distribution remains in the range of 1410 to 3360 pm with an average size of about 2000 m

(3) Coarse grinds of Monsanto E-2 AN have an average particle size of about 280 pm which is in the size range (200 to 400 pm) for better fit with the other solids

(4) The Monsanto E-2 AN remains free flowing in both the ungroundand ground states with reasonable protection from moisture

(5) Cost of the Monsanto E-2 AN in large bulk quantities is 157 1kg (71 [lb) which is comparable to other AN types which are not phase stabilized

ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant batches have been made with all three of the AN types discussed above In general results were as follows

(1) The propellant made with Monsanto E-2 AN had lower endshyof-mix viscosities and longer casting lives than the proshypellant made with the other two types of AN

(2) Burning rates with the Monsanto E-2 AN were either comparable or slightly faster

Based on these results Monsanto E-2 AN was selected as the preferred AN type for the following reasons

(1) It is easily processed with good particle-size control It remains free flowing in both the unground and ground states with reasonable protection from moisture The prill does not readily break with normal handling or tumble drying

(2) It has typically a 5 higher prill density This lowers propellant volumetric solids loading which improves castability

(3) This AN can be ground to more optimum size distributions for improved solids packing

3-25

065

063 063

1

- BOWDEN

MONSANTO E-2 -

I

PHASE ILr

E

uS 061 IIshy

0 -

CU 059

057

055

-100 -50

Figure 3-4

0 50 100

TEMPERATURE degC

Specific Volume of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature

150 200

3-26

(4) It does not have a talc anticaking coating which appears

to accelerate propellant viscosity buildup

(5) Phase stabilization minimizes volumetric changes with varying

temperature due to phase changes

(6) This AN gives comparable or slightly faster burning rates

(7) It has a comparable price to other AN types in large bulk

quantities

7 ANAPAlHTPB ( 3 Wt HC1 Exhaust)

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished

on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraint of lt 3 wt HCl in the propellant exhaust

This constraint is met by limiting the AP level in the formulation to

( 10 wt

a Burning Rate Studies Initial burning rate studies were

made to evaluate different ballistic modifier types and levels with

the basic 88 wt solids ANAPAlHTPB propellant The selection of

the ballistic modifiers was limited to those that were

(1) Commercially available

(2) Proved successful for use within rubber base propellants

(3) Non-migrating

(4) Reasonably priced

selectedAmmonium dichromate (NH4)2Cr207 at the 2 wt level was

as the primary ballistic modifier for the following reasons

(1) AN is the major oxidizer

(2) AD has been used successfully for years with AN propellants

Other ballistic modifiers were used in conjunction with the AD to enhance

burning rate and attempt to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms

(035 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) Table 3-9 shows the formulations evaluatedand the cured strand burning rates obtained

The propellant formulations were mixed as small (1000 to 1500 g)

batches using a 38-liter (1-gal) vertical Bramley mixer The propellant

was cast into RAM-225 released molds that formed individual propellant

strands and was then cured After cure the propellant strands were tested

in a conventional Crawford Bomb strand burner A subsequent study

discussed in the section on ANUNXAPAlHTPB propellant showed that

3-27

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Formulation wt Crawford Bomb Data

rb cms (ins)

Batch No

Total Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m)

Other Ballistic Modifier

Oxidizer Blend CoarseFine

At 345 Nem2

and 210C (500 psia and 700F)

At 690 Ncm2

and 210C (1000 psia and 700 F)

o

30

31 55

88 6o

59 57

10 15 2

2 2

Fe20Q

Fe203 Fe203

1

2 4

4555

442558 425575

0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0279 (0110)

0538 (0212)

0475 (0187)

0432 (0170)

32

33

49

34

60

59

57

59

2

2

2

2

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite Fe203

1

2

4

1 1

4555

442558

425575

442558

0462 (0182)

0564 (0222)

0472 (0186)

0493 (0194)

0627 (0247)

0759 (0299)

0671 (0264)

0737 (0290)estimated

50 57 2 Copper Chromite Fe203

2 2 425575 0511 (0201) 0699 (0275)

54 57 2 Copper Chromite FeF 3 (unground)

2 2 425575 0485 (0191) 0648 (0255)

35 6o 2 Milor Blue 1 4555 0399 (0157) 0625 (0246)

56 57 2 Milori Blue 4 425575 0371 (0146) 0528 (0208)

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

a Crawford Bomb Data

Formulation wt rb cms (ins)

At 3115 Ncm2 At 690 Ncm2

0 0and 21 C and 21 C

Batch Total Other Ballistic Oxidizer Blend (500 psia (1000 psia 0

No Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m) Modifier CoarseFine and 70 F) and 700 F)

W 36 88 60 10 15 2 Ferrocene 1 4555 0381 (0150) 0569 (0224)N)

42 60 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 1 4555 0429 (0169) 0594 (0234)

53 57 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 4 425575 0356 (0140) 0490 (0193)

41 60 2 Iron phthshyalocyanine 1$ 4555 0358 (0141) 0490 (0193)

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

the strand burning rates may have been biased to give faster rates by the RAM-225 release agent However the burning rate trends and ranking of the ballistic modifiers do not appear to be biased by the RAM-225

Figure 3-5 shows strand burning rates plotted at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) versus the second ballistic modifier level for the ballistic modifier systems evaluated General conclusions from the study were as follows

(1) The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) and 2 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) gave the fastest burn rate

(2) Increasing the combined level of burning rate modifiers to greater than 4wt of theformulatibn decreased the burn rate

Although the attritor-ground (I m) ferric fluoride (FeF 3) gave a faster burning rate than CU-0202 P at the 1 wt second ballistic modifier level FeF 3 was not selected because it would have contributed HF in the propellant exhaust A preliminary selection of the ballistic modifier system was made for subsequent work The system selected was 2 wt $ ground AD and 2 wt as-received CU-0202 P

Achievement of the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2

(035 ins at 1000 psia) had not been accomplished by simple manipulation of the ballistic modifier type and level Consequently propellant developshyment effort was continued toward this goal along the following approaches

(1) Finer particle size ballisticmodifiers

(2) Finer particle size AN

(3) Greater level of fine AN

(4) Finer particle size AP

(5) Use of potassium perchlorate

Two approaches were evaluated to reduce ballistic modifier particle sizes to sizes smaller than those achievable with a hammer mill They were dry ball milling and attritor grinding The dry ball milling approach was unsuccessful with AD and CU-0202 P because they packed into a hard cake Attritor grinding of AP and FeF 3 to particle sizes smaller than 1 m has been successfully demonstrated within the solid propellant industry This method uses an attritor mill to grind material suspended in Freon between zircoa beads Attritor grinds were successfully made with AD and CU-0202 P and the particle-size reductions accomplished are summarized in Table 3-10

3-30

1016 I1

STRAND BURN RATES POSSIBLY BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

040

EU

04 E

z 0762

FIRST BALLISTIC MODIFIER 200 wt GROUND AD

FeF3 GROUND TO I

030

K c

0 10

uIX FeF 3 (UNGROUND)

Z

0 58

IRONO PHTHALOCYANINE

MILORI BLUE

x FERROCENEFe 20 3

020 zS

ln

0254 I I 0 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SECOND BALLISTIC MODIFIER LEVEL wt

Figure 3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic

Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-31

Table 3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P

Screen Analysis Micromerograph Material 50 wt pt 50 wt pt

Particle Size pm Particle Size pm

AD

As received =575

Attritor ground (21 h) - 44

CU-0202 P

As received 21

Attritor ground (21 h) shy 17

Small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of the smaller ballistic modifier particle sizes on strand burning rates Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-11 General conclusions from this study are as follows

(1) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 1 wt FeF 3 fine ground AN and 9-gm AP reducing the FeF 3 particle size from a coarse as-received to attritor-ground 1 pm material increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2

(1000 psia) from 0594 to 0668 cms (0234 to 0263 ins) (-12)

(2) In an IDP-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P coarse ground AN and 63- AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm did not significantly change strand burning rate

(3) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (0208 to 0219 ins) ( 5)

(4) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (2208 to 0218 ins) (5)

3-32

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-l05 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized 40 IDP

plasticized

1200

-

1200

-

-

1200

-

1200

1200

-

1200

-

1200

-

Aluminum MD 105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground

72 pm Attritor ground

44 gm

200

-

200

-

200 -

200bull

200

-

200

-

-

200

Ferric fluoride As received Attritor ground 1 pm

100 -

-100

- -

- -

-

-

Copper chromite As received 21 pm

Attritor ground 17 pm

- 200

-

200

-

200

-

-

200

200

-

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine Ground Gulf

Oil Fine ground

Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

3150 -

2850

-

3150 -

2850

-

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 1000 9 [Lm

FEM ground 63 pm -

1000

-

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000 1000

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-33

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-105 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 690 Ncm 2 0429 0465 0422 0419 0424 0439 0437 (100 psia) (0169)(0183)(0166) (0165) (0167) (0173) (0172)

At 345 Ncm 2 0594 0668 0467 0475 0528 0556 0554 (500 psia) (0234)(0263)(0184) (0187) (0208) (0219) (0218)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 047 053 014 018 030 033 033

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

In summary reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burning rates for the selected ballistic modifier system

As discussed earlier particle-size control of the unground Gulf Oil AN was a problem because of breakage of the prills during drying and handling A partial approach to this problem was to screen the unground Gulf Oil AN into a selected size range after drying and handling Smallshyscale propellant batches (1000 to 1500 g) were made using Gulf Oil AN and strand burn rate tests were performed on these batches to evaluate

(1) The effect of screened +60 to -32 mesh (250 to 570 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(2) The effect of screened +32 to -16mesh (570 to 1190 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(3) The effect of varying the fraction of AN as fine ground on castability and burn rate

The fine ground AN was ground using a hammer mill with the following settings

9600 rpm hammer speed 80 rpm feed speed

0033-cm (0013-in) screen

3-34

Fisher sub-sieve average particle size for this material was typically 20 pm The fraction of AN as fine ground was limited to less than 55wt to keep propellant processable in the small scale batches (Larger batches typically have better castability) Table 3-12 and Fig 3-6 summarize test results General conclusions from these results were

(1) All batches had poor relative castability

(2) Using unscreened unground Gulf Oil AN (broad particle-size distribution with a significant portion of fines) and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 483 to 542 wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) from 0505 to 0577 cms (0199 to 0227 ins)

(3) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0462 cms (0199 to 0182 ins)

(4) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 300 to 483

wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (100 psia) from 0419 to Q462cms (0165 to 0182 ins)

(5) Changing the coarse fraction from screened +60 to -32 AN to screened +32 to -16 mesh AN reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0404 cms (0165 to 0159 in s)

Changing the type of ammonium nitrate type from Gulf Oil to Monsanto phase stabilized AN eliminated the problem of prill breakage but did not improve castability even with IDP plasticizer as shown by Batch SB-101 in Table 3-12 The slower burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponent with Batch SB-101 compared to Batch SB-64 is due to use of IDP as the plasticizer A small-scale propellant batch SB-102 was made with a coarse ground Monsanto AN to evaluate the effect of this material on castability and burn rate The coarse ground was made using a hammer mill with the following setting 4000 rpm hammer speed 160 rpm feed speed and 032-cm (18-in) screen

Screen analysis indicated this coarse ground AN had an average particle size of approximately 280 pm Propellant castability using this material was excellent but strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was reduced from 0485 to 0442 cms (0191 to 0174 ins) 9 The burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) was not achieved by varying AN type AN particle size or fraction of AN fine ground

The effect of replacing hammer mill ground AP by fluid energy mill ground AP on propellant burning rate was evaluated in a series of five small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) batches Three batches were made using DOA plasticizer and fine ground Gulf AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 55 pm Two batches were made using IDP plasticizer and coarse ground Monsanto AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm Results of this study are shown in Table 3-13 and Fig 3-7

3-35

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized40 IDP

plasticized

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 to 72 gm

Copper chromite as received

im21

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Screened (+60-32) Gulf Oil

Screened (+32 to -16 mesh) Gulf Oil

Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil

Fine ground Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground9 gm

Fraction of AN fine ground (wt )

Relative Castability

SB-64

AN-25

1200

-

200

200

1500

3050

-

-

2850

-

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-75

AN-63

1200

-

200

200

1500

2700

-

--

3200

-

1000

542

Poor

SB-48

AN-40

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

4130

--

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-48A

AN-40A

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

-

4130 -

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-61

AN-53

1200

200

200

1500

-

3050

-

2850

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-101 SB-102

AN-65 AN-65A

- -

1200 1200

200 200

200 200

1500 1500

- -

- -

- -3050 3050

- -

2850 -

2850

1000 1000

483 -

Poor Excellent

3-36

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-64 SB-75 SB-48 SB-48A SB-61 SB-101 SB-102

Formulation No AN-25 AN-63 AN-40 AN-40A AN-53 AN-65 AN-65A

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm 2 0366 0414 0277 0284 0338 0419 0351 (500 psia) (0144)(0163)(0109) (0112) (0133) (0165) (0138)

At 690 Ncm2 0505 0577 0419 0404 0462 0485 0442 (1000 psia) (0199)(0227)(0165) (0159) (0182) (0191) (0174)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 047 049 060() 050 045 022 032

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

These results indicated the following

(1) Using DOA plasticizer fine ground Gulf AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 55 gm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0508 to 0635 cms (0200 to 0250 ins)

(2) Using IDP plasticizer coarse ground Monsanto AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0442 to 0467 cms (0174 to 0184 ins)

(3) Use of the finer (55 to 63 pm) fluid energy ground AP did not increase pressure exponent

Maximum burning rate achieved using fluid energy ground AP was 0635 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0250 ins at 1000 psia) compared to the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

3-37

Table 3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-62 SB-64 SB-66 SB-102 SB-103

Formulation No AN-25 AN-25 AN-56 AN-65A- AN-65B

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 wt DOA plasticized 40 wt IDP plasticized

1200 -

1200 -

1200 -

-

1200 1200

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as

received 21 [m 200 200 200 200 200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 -1500

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil Coarse ground Monsanto

3050

-2850 -

3050

-2850

-

3050

-2850

-

3050 -

2850

3050 -

2850

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 9 1m Fluid energy ground 55 pm Fluid energy ground 63 pm

1000 --

1000 -

-

1000 -

1000 -

-

-

1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Ratesa

cms at 251C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)- 0368 (0145)

0366 (0144)

0457 (0180)

0351 (0138)

0422 (o166)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0508 (0200)

0505 (0199)

064 (025)

0442 (0174)

0467 (0184)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 049 049 048 032 014

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-38

0762 I I I 1 030 11nSTRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY -Z o BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

0E E

COARSE FRACTION HADBROAD SIZE DISTRIBUTION a Z o

WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTION OFFINES

oC 10I0 Ishy

lt 0508 020 w

zz Z 0-COARSE FRACTION WAS 04 n SCREENED TO OBTAIN

NARROW COARSE DISTRIBUTION (+60 -32

o Z

I-MESH) WITH NO FINES

-shy

0254 20

I 30

I 40

I 50

I 60

010 70

FRACTION QF FINE GROUND AN wt

Figure 3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (Gulf AN)

3-39

1270 050

E

U

o 0

I-

C

BURN RATE GOAL o

I-

D Co0

0762 FINE

DOA

GROUND AN AND

PLASTICIZER

030

0D 0o z

V) 0508-

COARSE GROUND AN AND IDP PLASTICIZER 020

0381 I I I I I 015 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) jm

Figure 3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size

ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-40

A small-scale propellant batch SB-65 was made to determine whether the burning rate could be increased significantly by replacing the ground AP by ground potassium perchlorate (KP) Strand burn rate tests were made on this batch and compared to the reference Batch SB-64 as shown in Table 3-14 Strand burning rate at690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was increased from 0505 to 0531 cms (0199 to 0209 ins) 5 but pressure exponent increased from 047 to 065 This approach was dropped because of the minimal increase in burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and the significant increase in pressure exponent

b Combustion Problems One of the problems in using ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer in solid propellants is the incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered specific impulse This problem was studied in the Phase 0 effort and partially resolved by modifying the formulations to include 10 wt AP Other approaches considered on this program to improve aluminum combustion and performance were

(1) Use of aluminum and zirconium mixtures Zirconium has

lower ignition temperature than aluminum

(2) Use of dichromate-coated aluminum powder

(3) Use of aluminummagnesium alloys

(4) Use of plasticizers containing more oxidizer to obtain a more favorable oxidizerfuel ratio

Some increases in propellant burning were also considered possible with several of these approaches Because of limited time and fundsonly the first two approaches were evaluated to any extent with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant Results of these studies are covered in the following discussion

A small-scale propellant batch SB-104 was made using the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum to evaluate the effect on strand burning rates Results of these strand burning rate tests are compared to strand burning rates of reference Batch SB-103 in Table 3-15 The replacement of the uncoated MD-05 aluminum by the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0467 to 0424 cms (0184 to 0167 ins) 9 No motors were loaded and tested to evaluate the effects of this dichromate-coated aluminum on delivered specific impulse

3-41

Table 3-14 Evaluation of Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-64 SB-65

Formulation No AN-25 AN-55

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 gim 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 [Lm 1000 -

Potassium perchlorate hammer mill ground 30 gm - 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0366 (0144) 0340 (013

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0505 (0199) 0531 (0209

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 049 065

Six small-scale propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of AlZr mixtures on propellant castability and strand burning rates Three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt Fe203 The other three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P Zirconium powder level was varied at 0 250 and 500 wt of propellant formulation (0 16 and 13 replacement of Al) Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-16 and Fig 3-8 General conclusions were as follows

3-42

Table 3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-103 SB-104

Formulation No AN-65B AN-65C

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 (uncoated) 1500 -

Aluminum H-5 (dichromate coated) - 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250C

(ins at 771F)

At 345 Ncm 2 (500 psia) 0422 (0166) 0366 (0144)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0467 (0184) 0424 (0167)

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 014 022

3-43

1016 1 1 1 1 040

-rl STRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY E BIASED BY RAM-225 (3 MOLD RELEASE

E

0762 030 0

CD 00 0 0 I---shy

100 CU-0202 P + 200 AD

z 0508 - 020 D

z z

- 100 Fe20 3 + 200 AD

0254 I I I -010 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ZIRCONIUM (REPLACING ALUMINUM) wt

Figure 3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium

ANAPA1HTPB Propellants

3-44

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Ingredients wt

iHTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1250 1000 1500 1250 1000

Zirconium powder --- 250 500 250 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 [m 200 200 200 200 200 200

Fe203 as received 100 100 100

Copper chromite as received --- - --- 100 100 100

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 gm 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)e

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0272 (0107)

0462 (0182)

0376 (0148)

0307 (0121)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0538 (0212)

0452 (0178)

0399 (0157)

0627 (0247)

0546 (0215)

0455 (0179)

3-45

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 390 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 052 058 058 044 054 057

apoor relative castability bUncastable

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

(1) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to make the propellant less castable on the 38-liter (1-gal) batch scale

(2) The 200 wt AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P ballistic modifier system gave faster burning rates than the 200 wt AD and 100 wt Fe203 ballistic modifier system

(3) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to reduce propellant strand burning rate and increase strand pressure exponent

Based on this study and the study of ballistic modifiers a formulation using 500 wt zirconium was selected for s6ale-up and evaluation in BATES motor firings Results of these additional tests are discussed in Section III-H-d and III-H-e

c Proc6ssing Studies Limited funds and time did not allow for any systematic study of processing variables to optimize processing conditions However processing methods and conditions were optimizedbased on experience Some of the specific approaches used for propellant mixing were

(1) Careful selections of order and manner of ingredient addition to disperse and wet solids

(2) Elevated temperatures prior to curative addition to wet and disperse solids and reduced temperatures after curative addition to minimize cure reactions

3-46

(3) Extended vacuum mix times prior to curative addition to

wet and disperse fine- solids

(4) Controlled moisture of ingredients and of the process

The effects of AN particle sizes and fraction of AN fine ground on propellant castability were discussed in conjunction with the burning rate studies

Antioxidants are commonly used with the R-45 HTPB binder to improve propellant pot life and aging stability The combination of UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-p-phenylene diamine) and DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone) appears to give synergistic effects and is very effective in extending pot life Protech 2002 (UTC proprietary metalshydeactivating antioxidant) and others of the Protech series have the additional advantage of being metal scavengers They tie up the transishytion metals that catalyze radical oxidations Four small-scale propellant batches were made initially to evaluate these pot-life extenders Table 3-17 summarizes results of this initial study The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH gave some improvement in propellant castability with no significant effect on propellant burning rate No improvement in propellant castability was observed with use of the Protech 2002 The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH was selected as the pot-life extender system to be used for additional evaluation

DOA was chosen initially as the plasticizer for use with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant It is one of the most commonly used plasticizers and its low cost is an advantage IDP has a lower viscosity and freezing point than DOA but is more costly than DOA Six smallshyscale propellant batches were made and tested to compare the two plasticizers DOA and IDP under the following three conditions

(1) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level without pot-life extenders

(2) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

(3) At the 50 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

Results of the study are summarized in Table 3-18 General conclusions from the study were

(1) The IDP consistently gave better castability than the DOA

(2) Use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH improved castability with both of the plasticizers DOA and IDP

(3) No major improvement in castability was observed by increasing the plasticizer in binder level from 40 to 50 wt

3-47

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1192 1177 1185

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl-hydroquinone) - 00 004 -

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshyphenylene diamine) -

Protech 2002 (UTC

proprietary antioxidant) -

004

-

004

015

-

015

Aluminum MD-105 1000 1000 1000 1000

Zirconium powder 500 500 500 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63ttxz 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm 1000 1000 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-48

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at

0770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 0323 0295 0282 0269 (500 psia) (0127) (0116) (0111) (0106)

At 690 Ncm 2 0475 0467 0483 0460 (1000 psia) (0187) (0184) (0190) (0181)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 057 066 078 078

aUncastable bpoor castability

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

The effect of plasticizer type on propellant burning rate was not conshyclusively determined from this study Two out of the three cases indicated that the IDP gave slower strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) To resolve this question two additional propellant batches SB-100 and SB-101 were made where the strand burn rate test results could not possibly be biased by the RAM-225 release agent The batches were formulated to have 40 wt plasticizer in binder and to use the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH Results of tests on these two batches are shown in Table 3-19 These results indicated the change from DOA to IDP plasticizer reduced the strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0544 to 0485 cms (0214 to 0191 ins) ( 11)

Based on results of these processing studies the following propellant selections were made for additional evaluation in scale-up batches and motor tests

(1) DOA plasticizer

(2) 40 wt plasticizer in binder level

(3) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH each at the 004 wt level

3-49

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

Formulation No AN-57a AN-58b AN-25 0 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 592 592 720 720 712 712

DTBH (25 dishytertiary butyl hydroquinone) 004 004 - - 004 004

UOP-36 (N-phenylshyN-cyclohexylshyP-phenylene diamine) 004 004 - - 004 004

DOA 600 - 480 - 480 -

IDP - 600 - 480- - 480

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 Am 200 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 [Lm 200 200 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate screened ungroundGulf Oil +60 -32 mesh 2700 2700 - - - -

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil - - 3050 3050 2700 2700

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 3200 3200 2850 2850 3200 3200

Ammonium perchloshyrate hammer mill ground 9 jim - - 1000 1000 1000 1000

3-50

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ammonium perabloshyrate fluid energy mill ground 55 pm

Total

Strand Burning Ratesd cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2 (500 to 1000 psia)

aGood castability

SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

AN-57a AN-58b AN-250 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

1000 1000 -

10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

0376 0371 0366 0478 0414 0353 (0148) (0146) (0144) (0188) (0163) (0139)

0572 0533 0505 0658 0577 0500 (0225) (0210) (0199) (0259) (0227) (0197)

059 053 047 046 049 048

bExcellent castability 0Poor castability dpossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-51

Table 3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-100

-AN-25a

SB-101

AN-65b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 712 712

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshy

P-phenylene diamine)

004

04

004

004

DOA 48o -

IDP - 480

Aluminum IAD-I05 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 72 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm

Total 1000

10000 1000

10000

Strand burning rates cms at 25degC (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

0406 (0160)

0544 (0214)

0419 (0165)

0485 (0191)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

041 022

apoor castability bFair castability

3-52

Results of these additional tests are discussed in sections on scale-up and ballistic evaluation

d Scale-up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Two propellant formulations were selected for evaluation in scale-up batches [946 liters 104 to 113 kg (25gal 230 to 250 lb)] and motor tests Formulation AN-25 was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum and 4 wt ballistic modifier Formulation AN-59 was identical except one-third of the aluminum (5 wt of the propellant formulation) was replaced by zirconium powder Details of the formulations are shownin Table 3-20 Both formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section e The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples from each batch

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rate

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-20 General conclusions from these tests were as follows

(1) The end-of-mix viscosities and pot lives on both batches were excellent There was no degradation of castability with zirconium as suggested by the small-scale batch studies

(2) Strand burning rates were slightly faster at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) for the formulation with zirconium The smallshyscale studies had suggested slower burning rates for formulashytions containing zirconium

(3) Both formulations had burning rateswhich were well below the burning rate goal 0478 and 0513 cms at 690 Ncm2

(0188 and 0202 ins at 1000 psia) versus goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(4) Card gap tests on both formulations were negative at 0 cards and therefore met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Density of the propellant containing zirconium was slightly higher than the propellant containing just aluminum as expected

3-53

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

Propellant Type Batch Number Formulation Number Batch Size kg (ib)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized)

UOP-36

DTBH

Ammonium dichromate grodnd 63 pm

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Aluminum powder

Zirconium powder

Ammonium nitrate Gulf Oil unground Gulf Oil fine ground

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 pm

Total

Brookfield apparent viscosities kP at 0C (OF)

Time after curative addition

07 h (end-of-mix) 13 h 34 h

Strand burning rates at 251C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) At 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

ANAPAlHTPB SB-73 AN-25

113 (250)

1192

004

004

200

200

1500

-

3050 2850

1000

10000

60 at 55 (130) 73 at 57 (135) 95 at 55 (130)

0257 (0101) 0373 (0147) 0462 (0182) 0478 (0188)

3-54

ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74 AN-59

104 (230)

1192

004

004

200

200

1000

500

3050 2850

1000

10000

41 at-57 (-135) 50 at-57 (-135)

0224 (0088) 0353 (0139) 0437 (0172) 0513 (0292)

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations (Continuation 1)

Propellant Type ANAPAlHTPB ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74Batch Number SB-73

Formulation Number AN-25 AN-59 Batch Size kg (ib) 113 (250) 104 (230)

Card Gap Tests 10 negative 10 negative at 0 cards at 0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) 16497 16630 gcm3 (lbin 3 ) (00596) (00601)

JANNAF Uniaxial properties Sm Ncm 2 (psi) 90 (130) 88 (127) era 47 48

Sb Ncm2

eb (psi) 90 (130)

47 88 (127)

48

(6) JANNAF uniaxial properties for both batches were comparable

Maximum stress Sm was in the range of 88 to 90 Ncm2

(127 to 130 psi) and strain at maximum stress em was in

the range of 47 to 48 The low strain values are adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

e Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlHTPB System (3 HCl in

Exhaust) The five candidate alternate propellants listed and defined

in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were all scaled up to processing of 113-kg (250-1b)

batches loaded into BATES motors and test fired The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions using nozzles manufactured

and cut to actual expansion ratios of 716 Both chamber pressure and thrust were measured The tests were conducted at ambient temperature

conditions with propellant charges conditioned to 250C (770F) The

measured sea level Isp swas corrected to a vacuum Isp by simply adding the

back-pressure correction The following equations define the pertinent ballistic parameters

PC _f tEWAT Pc Edttb

J t at 075 Pc init

3-55

-- t EWA T F = dt tF=ftat 075 PC initFtt

Ab gPc KN= - = -

At crp

-- f ta C g At PdtWp g PcKN rp

It Isp ms = shywip

fta itr Fdt

to

PaAeIsp vac ms =Isp MS + -

Wp expended

(ta + tb)2

Figure 3-9 shows the burning rate of the formulation number AN-25 the ANAPAlHTPB propellant system with 10 AP Table 3-21 is a tabulashytion of theBATES motor test data from the test firings of batch number SB-74 of formulation AN-25

f Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlZrHTPB BATES motors were also loaded and tested with the modified ANAPAlHTPB formulation

containing 5 Zr powder a 15-pm powder The burning rates determined in BATES motors are shown in Fig 3-10 and the ballistic data from the BATES motors tests are tabulated in Table 3-22

3-56

PRESSURE psic 4

102 8 103 2 4 6 102 4 6 1524 i 1 1 1 6

A BATES MOTOR DATA 1016 4

n 0278

E --U 0508 -

2

KN shy

(D 0254 - 1000 1o0 1

z 0203- 800- 88

z

0152 - 600 6

0102 - -400 4

0051 I 200 2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73

3-57

2540 2032

1524

102

-

2 4

PRESSURE

6 103

I

psa

2 4 6 104 10

BATES MOTOR DATA 6

1016 n 0277 4

0508 2

O

S0254-0229 0152 -

KN

1000 800600600

I0-866

z

a

6102 - 400 4

0051 I I I 1 200 1 2

69

Fig 3-10

138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74

3-58

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test data

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

W loaded kg (lb)

Wp expended kg (lb)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-sem2 (lb-s)

E-1453 E-1455

9-15-75 9-23-75

SB-732 SB-733

3376 3109 (1329) (1224)

3393 3119 (1336) (1228)

25225 2525 p(55611) (5567) 25028 2501

(55177) (5513)

9922 9904

3840 3855 (1512) (15178)

811 742

881 797

425 576 (616) (835)

493 634 (715) (919)

459 590 (666) (856)

38844 45878 (56339) (66541)

3-59

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 PropellantTable 3-21 (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s)

p (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia)

r at PC cms

(ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s

(Ib-s)

F (JF dttb)6 N (lb)

It (f F dt) (ta)

N-s (lbrs)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

In vac ins N-skg M

E-1455E-1453

4723240196 (68504)(58300)

61834790 (8968)(69147)

05180483 (0190) (02o4)

534445332

528544739

1432 1424 (4700) (4673)

948953

5174650665 (11633)(11390)

6973461910 (15677)(13918)

53745852257 (120826)(11748)

212844207165 (21704)(21125)

88828820

228132226534 (2310) (23263)

3-60

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids Aluminum Oxidizer

88 15 AP-1O AN-59 HMX 0

Run No E-1453 E-1455

Expansion ratio 688 700

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test date

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

Wp loaded kg (ib)

Wp expended kg (ib)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

-E-1454 E-1456

9-18-75 9-26-75

SB-741 SB-742

3287 3119 (1294) (1228)

3307 3142 (1302) (1237)

2561 2561 (5647) (5646)2534 2528

(5586) (5574)

9891 9872

3835 38298 (1510) (15078)

3-61

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-IO AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s)

fP dt (ta) N-scm (lb-s)

Pc (f P dttb)

Ncm2 (psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

E-1454 E-1456

769 740

824 784

465 552 (675) (800)

541 620 (785) (899)

540 614 1 (783) (890)

40311 4482C (58467) (6500

41806 46000 (60634) (66718)

5242 6057 (7603) (8785)

0498 0518 (0196) (0204)

478 531

4726 523

13940 14319 (45736) (46977)

928 9527

3-62

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb)N (lb)

it (fF dt) (ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s-)

Isp efficiency

lsi vac ms N-skg(s22055

Expansion ratio

E-1454 E-1456

50189 50576 (11283) (11370)

6526 6835 (1467) (15365)

52044 52044 (11700) (11770)

20319 20447 (2072) (2085)

8598 865

22016

(2249) (2245)

696 694

3-63

8 ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (gt3 Wt HCl in Exhaust)

The propellant development work accomplished on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to this point indicated that the burn rate goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with the constraint of lt3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was probably not achievable Development work was continued on this propellant with the HC1 constraint removed but held to a minimum This section discusses that propellant development effort

a Burning Rate Studies Four small-scale batches (1500 g) were made varying the FEM AP (fluid energy mill-ground ammonium perchlorate) level from 10 to 30 wt The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground AD and 2 wt CU-0202 P was used End-of-mix viscosities pot life and cured strand burning rates were measured on each batch Objective of this work was to determine what FEM AP level was needed

to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) The formulations and test results are shown in Table 3-23and Fig 3-11 These results lead to the following conclusions

(1) The strand burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) is achievable using 18 wt FEM AP A motor burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) may require a slightly higher FEM AP level

(2) End-of-mix viscosities werein the range of 88 to152 kP at 520C (125 0 F) for FEM AP levels ranging from 10 to 20 wt Casting lives for these batches were 2_35 h at

520C (125 0F)

(3) Using FEM AP and increasing the AP level from 10wt to 18-wt increases HCI in the exhaust from 29 to =50

Thermoballistic calculations indicated that reducing the ballistic modifier level to 2 wt by elimination of the AD increased theoretical Isp by 196 N-skg (2 s) Elimination of the AD was desirable from other considerations Studies had shown that it crosslinks the R-45 prepolymer (probably through the double bond) and degrades propellant castability and physical properties Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made varying the FEM AP level over the range of 15 to 25 wt level Only 2 wt as received CU-0202 P was used as ballistic modifier End-of-mix viscosities and-cured strand burning rates were measured

Results of this study are shown in Table 3-24 and Fig 3-11 General conclusions from this work were

(1) Approximately 20 wt FEM AP is required to meet the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosities were in the range of 18 to 19 kP at 520C (1250F)

3-64

1 1 0902286

0802032 - 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 200

AD + 200 CU-0202 P

KZ 1778 690 Ncm2 (1000 psa) -070 E 200CU-0202 P

0 -060 O 1524

lt I- 345 Ncm

2 (500 psa) 200 AD 200CU-0202 P

0501270

z z

040 D2 1016 co

z z

0762- 030n

345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 200 CU-0202 P 0200508 -

I I 0100254 I I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FEM AP LEVEL wt

Fig 3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

3-65

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder 40 DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground (72 im)

Copper chromite as received (21 1im)

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto unground

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto fine grind

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy ground (63 tim)

SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

3050 3050 3050 -3050

2850 2350 1850 850

1000 1500 2000 3000

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier) (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

Formulation No AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

Brookfield Viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) kPh after CA

End-of-mix -152067 112062 88038 2806 LU

Pot life 18417 26418 22414 shy25627 3228 27224 3237 4038 40834

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0424 (0167) 0536 (0211) 0739 (0291) 1461 (0575) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0528 (0208) 0693 (0273) 1067 (0420) 2136 (0841)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 - 038 051 052

CA = curative addition

Table 3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (2 Wt Ballistip Modifier)

Batch No Formulation No

Ingredientswt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate

FEM ground 63 Pm

Brookfield End-of-Mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F)

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-135 AN-69

1200

1500

200

3050

2550

1500

10000

19

0437 (0172)

0660 (0260)

058

SB-136 SB-137 AN-70 AN-71

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

3050 3050

1550 2050

2500 2000

10000 10006

18

0884 (0348) 0615 (0242)

0242 (0489) 0930 (0366)

051 060

3-68

Based on these results formulation AN-71 with 2 wt as received CUshy0202 P and 20 wt FEM AP was selected for additional evaluation with

a scale-up batch and motor tests

b Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation Formulation AN-71 was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch [946 liter (25 gal) 113 kg (250 lb)] and motor tests It was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum 20 wt FEM AP and 2 wt ballistic modifier Details of the formulation are shownin Table 3-25 Formulation AN-71 was successfully mixed in the 946-liter (25-gal) mixer and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section III-H-8-c and d Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests

were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are also summarized in Table 3-25 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The propellant end-of-mix viscosity was 28 kP at 530C (127degF) which is high but acceptable Pot life was about 2 hours

(2) The strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was 0922 cms (0363 ins) which met the goal of 089 cms at

690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(3) Strand pressure exponent was 061 Motor pressure exponents are typically lower than strand pressure exponents The generally high pressure exponent is associated with the low ballistic modifier level (2 wt CU-0202 P) and the

fine (FEM) AP

(4) Card gap tests were negative at 0 cards Therefore they met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) The propellant density and JANNAF uniaxial properties obtained were typical of properties obtainedwith the ANAPAlHTPB propellant Measured density was 16497 gcm3 at 250C (00596 lbin3 at 770 F) Sm was 89 Ncm2 (129 psi) with an em of 37 The low strain values were adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

3-69

Table 3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation

ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Type Batch Number SB-140 Formulation No AN-71

113 kg (250 lb)Batch Size

Formulation wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized) 1192 004UOP-36 004DTBH

Copper Chromite as received 21 Am 200 Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 Ammonium nitrate

Monsanto unground 3050 Monsanto fine ground 2050

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 2000

Total 10000

Brookfield Apparent Viscosities kP at 0C (OF) Time after curative addition

09 h (end-of-mix) 28 at 53 (127) 19 h 52 at 52 (125) 29 h 73 at 52 (125)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins) At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) 0445 (0175) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0612 (0241) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) 0785 (0309) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0922 (0363)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 061 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests Negative at

0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) gcm3 (lbin 3) 16497 (00596)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties Sm Ncm2 (psi) 89 (129) em 37

89 (129)Sb Ncm2 (psi)eb 37

3-70

c Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAIHTPB (gt3 HCI in Exhaust)

As has been discussed the effects on this candidate propellant system

resulting from increasing the AP content were studied A formulation

with 20 AP and burning rate modifier reduced to 2 met the burning The burningrate and Isp goal This formulation is identified as AN-71

rates and measured Isp are shown in Fig 3-12 and Table 3-26 respectively

d Summary One ANAPAlHTPB propellant formulation was

developed that conformed to the program constraints for lt3 wt HCl

in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards

classification This formulation AN-25 had a motor burning rate

-of only 053 cms at 690 Ncm2 (021 ins at 1000 psia) and a

= 716 of only 2285 N-skg (233 s) A maximumdelivered vacuum Ip E

strand burning rate of only 064 cms at 690 Ncm2 (025 ins at

1000 psia) (unbiased by RAM-225 release agent) was achieved within

the program constraints with a small-scale batch using fluid energy

Since the development work indicated thatmillground (55 [m) AP

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1300 psia)

was probably not achievable with the constraint of _3 wt HI in the

propellant exhaust development work was continued with this constraint

removed but held to a minimum Formulation AN-71 was developed to

This formulation used only 200 meet the program goals on that basis

wt copper chromite as ballistic modifier and 2000 wt fluid energy

It had a motor burning rate of 097 cms atmill ground (63 gim) AP 1000 psia) and a delivered vacuum I E = 716690 Ncm2 (038 ins at

of 2403 N-skg (245 s) Table 3-27 summarizes and compares te properties

of these two formulations versus the program goals

The following summarizes the status of the ANAPAlHTPB propellant

development

(1) The basic ANAPA1HTPB propellat ip the second most

promising candidate of the three basic propellants

to good(2) Demonstrated that a few of AP is essential

aluminum combustion

of AP is required to meet(3) Demonstrated that more than 10

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins

at 1000 psia)

(4) Formulation AN-71 with 20 wt AP met the program goals for

burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [097 cms (038 ins)

achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] and delivered

= 716 [2403 N-skg (245 s) achieved versusvacuum Is at E

goal of 21403 N-skg (245 s)] but did not meet the goal

for pressure exponent (048 achieved versus goal of K042)

It conformed to the constraint for a Class 2 propellant

but did not conform to the constraint for lt_3 wt HUl in

the propellant exhaust

3-71

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellent

Solids 88 Alumindm 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX ---

Run No E-1484

Test Date 6-10-76

BatchChg No SB-1401

Nozzle Dt init cm (in) 48636 (19148)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 46380 (1826)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3025 (6670)

Wp expended kg(ib) 3025 (6668)

Wt expended 9997

Web thickness cm (in) 4648 (1830)

tb s 698

ta s 730

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 313 (454)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 380 (551)

Pc final Ncm 2 (psia) 317 (460)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24506 (355435)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24952 (3619)

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 351 (509) (psia)

r at cCms (ins) 0665 (0262)

KN initial 2103

KN average 21987

C ms (fts) 14604 (47914)

C efficiency 972

3-72

-E-1491

6-25-76

SB-1402

48636 (19148)

46355 (1825)

3016 (6650)

3003 (6621)

9956

4630 (1823)

654

705

317 (460)

421 (610)

238 (345)

24525 (355710)

24948 (36184)

3750 (5439)

0709 (0279)

2103

-21998

14638 (48026)

975

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX --shy

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 6248797 (14o4786) 6281131 (1412055)

F (fF dttb) N (lb) 895249 (20126) 960415 (21591)

it (fF dt for ta) 6356996 (142911) 6382382(1434817)

N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 210117 (21426) 215588 (21576)

Isp efficiency 9226 9256

Isp vac ms (corr) 240214 (24495) 241008 (24576)

Expansion ratio 716 726

(5) Formulation AN-25 with 10 wt AP met the program goal for presshysure exponent (028 achieved versus goal of lt042) but did not

meet the goals for burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [053 cms (021 ins) achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] dr for delivered vacuum I eE = 716 [2285 N-skg (233 s) achieved versus goal of gt2403 N-skg (245 s)] It conformed to the constraints for a Class 2 propellant and gt3 wt hCl in the propellant exhaust

(6) Demonstrated good castability and a pot life greater than

34 hours for formulation AN-25

(7) Demonstrated acceptable castability for formulation AN-71

(8) Successfully loaded and test fired 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with both formulations

(9) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

9 ANHMXAIHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished in the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined pershyformance goals within the constraints specified One of the advantages of this basic propellant is that it contains no AP and consequently generates no HCl in the exhaust However typical formulations using

3-73

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104

1524 I 1 1 6

1016 -A BATES MOTOR DATA 4

0 5x 10 MOTOR DATA 0508 - 2

E U

n =048 KN

0254 1-- 000 10 o 0203 800-6L 8

Z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0124 - 400 4 D

0051 200 2

I 10-20025 I1 I I

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm 2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140

3-74

Table 3-27 ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Achieved Properties vs Goals

Achieved Value

SB-140SB-73 AN-71AN-25-Alternate Propellant

Goal (10 wt- AP) (20 wt AP)Property

BATES motor Burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

089 (035) 053 (021) 097 (038)acms (ins)

BATES motor lt042 028pressure exponent

-Delivered vacuum sn

E 716 N-skg (s) 2403 (2245) 2285 (233) 2403 (245)

lt3 30 631C1 in exhaust

Meets card gap yes Required yesrequirement for Class 2 (negative (negative

at 0 cards)at 0 cards)

a45-kg (10-1b) motor test data

7) about to 20 wt HMX have theoretical Isp values

(vacuum and E 15 196 N-skg (2 s) less than comparable ANHNXAP(10)AlHTPB

formulations

Reduction in program funds and scope limited development effort on

this basic propellant to only four exploratory mixes

Two 10-g hand mixes one uncured and one a Safety Tests cured were made of formulations with 20 wt Class

A HMX to initially -Impact

check material compatibility and propellant safety properties

tests (DSC-differential scanning calorimeter) were made on both mixes

The formulations and results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-28

For comparison purposes these same safety tests were made on propellant

samples of the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-B-1123) Table 3-29

compares the safety properties of the candidate ANHMXAlHTPB formulation

AN-52 with the safety properties of PBAN baseline formulation TP-H-1123

These tests indicated

3-75

Table 3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No

Formulation No

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45 Alrosperse Premix DOA (4o)

Aluminum Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm Copper chromite as received Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 pm HMX Type II Class A

(DOA coated) Ammonium nitrate ground Ammonium nitrate unground

(+60 -32 mesh screened fraction) IPDI

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight 0 fire 50 fire

Electrostatic Sensitivity J

Thermal Stability (DSC - 10OCmin heating rate)

SB-59 SB-60

AN-51 (uncured) AN-52

1108 1108

1500 1500 200 200 200 200 7

2020 2020 3410 3410

1500 1500 none shy 062 9938 10000

4318 (17 )a 4572 (18) 4826 (19 )a 508 (20)

gt128 gt128

No exotherm No exotherm over tempera- over temperashyture range 21 ture range 21 to 1490c (70 to 1490c (70

to 3000 F) to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

3-76

Table 3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAiHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-52)

Formulation TP-H-1123 (PBAN Baseline)

Batch No SB-77

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400

HTPB binder

Aluminum 1600

Ballistic modifiers 040

Ammonium perchlorate 6960

Ammonium nitrate

HMX Type II Class A

Impact sensitivity cm (in) for 18 kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4318 (18) 50 fire 4953 (195)

Electrostatic sensitivity J gt128

Thermal stability (DSC - 100 Cmin heating rate) No exotherm

over temperature range 21 to -1490c (70tto 3000F)

DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

AN-52

SB-60

1190

1500

400

4910

2000

4572 (18) 508 (20)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000F)

3-77

(1) Formulation AN-52 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123)

(2) DSC data suggested that thermal stability of the 20 wt HMX propellant and gross material compatibility over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 300 0F) were adequate

(3) Formulations with up to 20 wt HMX could be safely processed inthe JPL ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

b Burning Rate Studies Two small-scale batches (1000 g) were made varying the level of Class A HMX from 1500 to 2000 wt Strand burn rate tests were made on cured propellant from both batches The formulations and results of strand burn rate tests are shown in Table 3-30 Strand burning rates increased from 0414 to 0450 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0163 to 0177 ins at 1000 psia) with the 1500 to 2000 wt increase in Class A HMX while the strand pressure exponent remained constant at 042 Although the strand pressure exponent met the performance goal of lt042 the burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)were well below the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) These very slow burn rates suggest that the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant may not be a viable candidate for achieving program goals

c Hazard Classification Card gap samples were cast cured and tested from the two batches shownin Table 3-30 Results of the card gap tests indicated positive tests at 35 and 70 cards on both batches Therefore these formulations with 15 and 20 wt Class A HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant hazard classification one of the major constraints Propellant development work on the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant was terminated at this point

d Summary The following summarizes the status of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant development

(1) Demonstrated that 1500 and 2000 wt_ Class A HMX resulted in Class 7 propellants

(2) Achieved a strand burning rate of 0450 cms (0177 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and a strand pressure exponent of 042 with a formulation containing 2000 wt Class A HMX

(3) Demonstrated good castability of the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant

(4) Discontinued development of this basic propellant as a result of reduction in funds

3-78

Table 3-30 ANHM4XHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-82A (HMX)

ANH-1

SB-81

ANH-1

(HMX)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class A 1500 2000

Ammonium nitrate 5400 4900

Card gap tests

0 cards 35 cards 70 cards

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

1 positive 2 positive

0-310 (0122) 0414 (0163)

042

1 positive 2 positive

0340 (0134) 0450 (0177)

042

3-79

10 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work-accompshylished on the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraints specified The constraint of lt_3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was accomplished by limiting the AP level in the formulation to10 wt The constraint of a Class 2 propellant hazard classification was primarily accomplished by limiting the HMX Class (particle size) and level to meet the card gap requireshyments for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards)

a Safety Tests Safety tests were performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes containing 20 wt Class A HMX to check material compatishybility and safety properties The formulations and the test results are shown in Table 3-31 As in the case of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant these safety tests results were compared to similar safety test results on the PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123) Table 3-32 shows this comparison General conclusions were

(1) Formulation AN-50 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as TP-H-1123

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F) as determined by the DSC

(3) Formulations with-up to 20 wt HMX could besafely proshycessed in the JPL-ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

Safety tests were also performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes to check material capability and propellant safety properties when the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were incorporated into ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellants Selected level for both UOP-36 and DTBH was 004 wt Impact sensitivity electrostatic sensitivity and thermal stability (DSC) tests were made on samples from the mix with the pot-life extendshyers SB-127 and on samples from a control mix without the pot-life extenders SB-126 The formulations and test results were shown in Table 3-33 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The mix with the pot-life extenders had essentially the same impact sensitivity and electrostatic sensitivity as the control mix

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000 F) (DSC)

b Burning Rate Studies Six small-scale batches were made varying HMX particle size at two sizes Class A ( 149 lm) and Class E (15 to 20 gim) and HMX level at three levels 10 15 and 20 wt Objective of this study was to determine the effects of HMX particle

3-80

Table 3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No SB-57 (uncured)

Formulation No AN-49

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45

Alrosperse Premix 1108

DOA (40)

Aluminum 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm 200

Copper chromite as received 200

Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 Jm 1000

HMX Type II Class A (1 DOA coated) 2020

Ammonium nitrate ground 3910

IPDI none

9938

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for

18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 Fire 381 (15)a

50 Fire 43-18 (17 )a

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over (DSC at 10degCmin heating temperature range rate) 21 to 1490C

(70 to 3000 F)

SB-58

AN-50

1108

1500

200

200

1000

2020

3910

062

10000

5334 (21)

5715 (225)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples

3-81

Table 3-32 -Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate--ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-50)

Formulation TP-H-1123 AN-50

(PANbaseline)

Batch Number SB-77 SB-58

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400 ---

HTPB binder --- 1190

Aluminum 1600 1500

Ballistic modifiers 040 400

Ammonium perchlorate 6960 1000

Ammonium nitrate --- 3910

HMX Type II Class A --- 2000

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4572 (18) 5334 (21)

50 fire 4953 (195) 5715 (225)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability (DSC at 100Cmin heating No exotherm over No exotherm-over rate) temperature rangeru temperature range

21 to 1490C 21 to 149 0 Cshy(70 to 3000 F) (70 to 3000 F)

size and level on propellant hazard classification (card gap tests) strand burningrates and relative castability Tests were performed on- samples from each of these batches and the results are summarized in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 alongwith-the formulations Results of the card gap tests and relative castability are discussed in the hazards classification and processing sections respectively The strand burn- ing rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) were plotted versus HMX level in Fig 3-13 forthe two different HMXparticle sizes Class A and Class E Although the strand burning rates are biased to faster values by the

3-82

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests

Formulations for 10-g Hand Mixes

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate attritor ground (44 pm)

Copper chromite attritor

ground (17 Pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (63 gm)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-Nshycyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine)

DTBH (ditertiary butyl hydroquinone)

Safety Tests (Cured Propellant)

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight)

0 Fire

50 Fire

SB-126 SB-127

ANH-16A (Control) ANH-30

1200 1192

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1300 1300

100 1000

004

0-04

10000 10000

43 (17) 57 (19)

52 (205) 51 (20)

3-83

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests (Continuation 1)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over No exotherm over

(DSC at 10degCmin heating rate)

temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000F)

temperature range 21 to 149 0C (70 to 3000F)

RAM-225 release agent the relative ranking and trends are believed to be valid General conclusions from these rankings and trends are as follows

(1) The fine particle size HMX Class E (15-20 pm) gave signifishycantly faster burning rates than the coarse Class A (=149 pm) HMX

(2) The fine particle size HMX Class E gave lower pressure exponent than the coarse Class E HMX

(3) Strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) increased significantly with HMX level to about 15 wt and tended to level in the 15 to 20 wt range

From burning rate considerations the fine size Class E HMX was preferred because it gave faster burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponents Formulation ANH-5A [Batch SB-85A(HMX)] was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed in Sections III-H-10-f and III-H-10-g on Scale-up and Ballistic Evaluation

Cured propellant strands to this point in the program had been prepared by casting the uncured propellant into molds which formed individual strands and which had been coated with RAM-225 release agent Test data from the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings(from Batch SB-89 (first scale-up batch) revealed a large discrepancy between strand burn rates and the 45-kg (10-1b) motor burn rates An investigation of this discrepshyancy revealed that the RAM-225 was the cause Strands were prepared in5 the following three ways and tested for comparison

(1) Strands cured in the RAM-225 release molds and restricted

(2) Strands cut from a solid block of cured propellant and restricted

(3) Strands cut from a block of cured propellant then given light spray coat of RAM-225 dried in 710 C (1600F) oven then restricted

3-84

Table 3-34 ANH-MXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class A

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchlorate

ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates2

at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500to 1000 psia)

SB-88

ANH-8

1200

1500

200

200

1000

4900

1000

2 negative

1 negative

0480(0189)a

6 65 (0 2 62 )a0

048

SB-83 SB-84

ANH-3 NH-4

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1500 2000

4400 3900

1000 1000

-

1 positive 1 positive

2 positive 2 positive

0 622 (0 245 )a 05 41(02 13 )a

0826 (0 32 5)a 0 7 47 (02 94 )a

041 047

3-85

Table 3-34 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) (Continuation 1)

Shore A Hardness (3 s) 81 80 82

Relative Castability Good Good Good

aStrands were cast into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

Results of the tests are summarized in Table 3-36 and Fig 3-14 Very good agreement was obtained between the burn rate of strands cured in the RAM-225 release mold and strands cut from a cured block of propelshy

lant and then sprayed with RAM-225 However both these sets of burn

rates were erroneously fast compared to the 5 x 10 motor burn rates In contrast the strand burn rates obtained from cut strands which were

not treated with RAM-225 were much slower and agreed fairly well with motor data

A brief investigation was made to determine the composition of RAM-225 and whether it could be used as an improved ballistic modifier in the propellant formulation Chemical analysis of RAM-225 indicated

that it is a high molecular weight silicone oil in the solvents isopropashynol and heptane Two 38-liter (1-gal) batches of propellant were made with 015 wt dimethyl silicone (1000 cS) One batch had 400 wt mixed ballistic modifiers (ammonium dichromate and copper chromite) and

the other batch had 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier Both batches made with the 015 wt dimethyl silicone showed signs of viscosity buildup even before curative addition The batch with the 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier became too viscous to process to completion Tests results on the successfully completed batch with 015 wt dimethshyyl silicon [Batch SB-107 (HMX)] are shown in Table 3-37 Test results from Batch SB-108 (HMX) are also included in this table for comparative purposes General conclusions from these tests are as follows

(1) No significant changes in strand burning rates were observed due to addition of 015 wt dimethyl silicone

(2) The dimethyl silicone caused rapid propellant viscosity buildup even before curative addition and therefore the material appears impractical from propellant processing considerations

A series of six small-scale (1000 g) batches was made with the specific objectives of increasing propellant burn rate improving castashybility and improving burn rate reproducibility US Agri-Chemicals (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent was used for all six batches The following variables were evaluated

3-86

0

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations --HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchloshyrate ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

32 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770 F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-87 SB-85A SB-86

ANH-7 ANH-5A ANH-6

1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500

200 200 200

200 200 200

1000 1500 2000

4900 4400 3900

1000 1000 1000

2 neg -

1 neg

I neg 2 neg 1 pos

1 pos

(500 psia) 0 767 (0 302 )a 0 930 (0 366 )a 0912(0359)a

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0970(0382)a 1105 (0 43 5 )a 1 128 (0444 )a

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2

(500to 1000 psia) 033 024 031

3-87

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation

(Class E HMX) (Continuation 1)

89 88Shore A Hardness (3 s) 90

Relative Castability Fair Fair Marginal

aStrands were east into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

(1) Ammonium nitrate particle size Replacement of part or all of the large unground prills by a coarse-ground ammor nitrate

(2) Plasticizer type Replacement of DOA (dioctyl adipate) by IDP (isodecyl pelargonate)

Relative castability and strand burn rates were measured on each batch Results of this study are summarized in Tables 3-38 and 3-39 and Fig 3-15 General conclusions regarding propellant burn rates from the study were as follows

(1) Replacement of the very large unground ammonium nitrate prills by coarsely ground ammonium nitrate reduced propelshy

lant burning rate

(2) Replacement of DOA by IDP slightly reduced propellant burnshying rate (Q2)

(3) Strand pressure exponents were typically 036 or less well within the goal of lt042

(4) The US Agri-Chemical (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent handled without caking and had less tendshyency to size reduce during handling tand mixing These

factors should improve propellant burn rate reproducibility

The reduction in burn rate by replacement of unground prills with coarseshyly ground AN was unexpected and inconsistent with usual solid propellant experience Usually propellant burn rate increases with increasing fractions of ground oxidizer The mechanism for this unusual response has not been identified to date Formulation ANH-12 Batch SB-94 (HMX)

had the fastest burn rate 0836 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0329 ins at 1000 psia) consistent with acceptable castability Therefore it was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of replacing bamer mill ground AP with the finer fluid energy mill (FEM) ground AP on propellant properties Micromerograph analysis

3-88

270I 050-K STRAND BURN RATES BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

CLASSE HMXZ 1016 040 0 0ashy10

7CLASS AHMX 0762 - 030 Z

z nD 2

z - -

Ce 0508 -020 1 F-I) 0 5 10 15 20

HMX wt

Fig 3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-89

Table 3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)

Strand Burning Rate cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

Strands cured Strands cut 5 x 10 motor Strands cut in RAM-225 from cured firings from cured

Pressure released mold block of block of Ncm 2 (psia) propellant propellant

sprayed with RAMshy225 dried and tested

690 (1000) 0991 (0390) 0721 (0284) 0660 (0260) 0983 (0387)

517 (750) 0876 (0345) - 0662 (0245)

345 (500) 0765 (0301) 0599 (0236) 0549 (0216) 0785 (0309)

172 (250) 0572 (0225) - 0457 (0180)

Pressure 042 027 028 033 exponent

indicated that the fluid energy mill AP had a mass median diameter of 63 Am compared to 90 pm for typical hammer mill ground AP Batch SB-110 (HMX) was made using 1700 wt Class E HMX and 1000 wt of the FEM AP A reference batch SB-98 (HMX) was made using the hammer mill ground AP Strand burn rates and relative castability were detershy

mined on both of the batches Results are shown in Table 3-40 and Fig 3-16

(1) Replacement of the hammer mill ground (9 pm) AP by the FEM ground (63 pm) AP increased strandburn rate to 0950 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0374 ins at 1000 psia) This exceeds the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) Strand pressure exponent appeared to be reduced with use of the FEM ground AP

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of finer ballistic modifier particle size on propellant properties As discussed in the ANAPHTPB propellant development section an attritor mill was used to size reduce the ballistic modifiers ammonium dichroshymate and copper chromite Batch SB-117 (HMX) was made using 200 wt

3-90

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPBbinder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper Chromite

Dimethyl silicone

(1000 cS)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground US Steel with anti-caking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground US Steel with antishycaking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium perchlorate ground

SB-l08 (Reference)

AN-20

1200

1500

200

200

-

2000

-

2900

-

1000

1000

SB-107 SB-109

ANH-19 ANH-21

1185 1185

1500 1500

200 100

200 100

015 015

2000 2000

2900 3100

-

1000 1000

- -

1000 1000

3-91

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations -Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation (Continuation 1)

Relative Castability Excellent Uncastable Mix could not castability be completed

cured up in mix bowl

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0665 (0262) 0673 (0265) -

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0818 (0322) 0808 (0318) -

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 026

Card gap tests

35 cards

55 cards

69 cards 3 positive 3 positive

attritor ground (17 pm) copper chromite 1700 wt Class E HMX and FEM ground (63 pm) AP No ammonium dichromate was used in this batch as a part of the overall effort to achieve the burning rate goal 089

cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with improved performance (Isc)castability and physical properties Reference Batch SB-116 (AN ) was made using as received (21 pm) copper chromite Table 3-41 summarizes results of Brookfield end-of-mix visosity and strand burn rate tests on these two batches These results led to the following conclusions

(1) In an IDP plasticized formulation using only 200 wt CU-0202 P as ballistic modifier coarse ground AN and 63 Im FEM ground AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 m increased the strand burn rate at 690

Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0724 to 0737 cms (0285 to 0290 ins) t_2

(2) No significant change in strand pressure exponent was observed

(3) Castability was good for both batches

3-92

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103

25401 0 1 100

2032 - A CURED IN RAM-225 RELEASED STRAND MOLD - 8

B STRAND CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK

1524- BURNED WITHOUT TREATMENT 6

EU C STRANDS CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK SPRAYED WITH RAM-225 DRIED THEN BURNED ui

1016- 4 0C oD

z 7I- 0 z z z

CA _B

o 0o

z z0508 2

V)

BATCH No SB-89 (HMX)

FOMULATION ANH-9

0254 I I i I 10-1 69 103 138- 207 345 690

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (IIX) Formulation ANH-9

3-93

Table 3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size

Variation (Class E HMX - DOA Plasticizer)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with antishycaking coating)

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with

anticaking coating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative castability

Strand burning rates

at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(at 1000 psia)

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-90 SB-91 SB-93 SB-95

ANH-9 ANH-10 ANH-11 ANH-13

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

1500 1500 1500 1500

4400 2900 1760

- 1500 2640 4400

_

1000 1000 1000 1000

Uncastable Uncastable Marginally Castable castable

- 0678 0678 0516 (0 267 )a (0234)a (0 2 0 3 )a

0953 0859 0859 0665 -(0 3 7 5 )a (0 3 3 8 )a (0 299)a (0 2 6 2 )a

034 035 036

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were cut

from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased

by RAM-225 release agent

3-94

Table 3-39 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX - IDP Plasticizer)

Batch No SB-94 SB-96

Formulation No ANH-12 ANH-14

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticizer) 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium diohromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class E 1500 1500

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 2900

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 1500 4400

Ammonium perchlorate ground 1000 1000

Relative Castability Good castability

Excellent castability

Strand burning rates at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

-

0836 (0 329 )a

0518 (0 204 )a

0655 (0258) a

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were

cut from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased by RAM-225 release agent

3-95

1016 1 040

eE aQCNO

DOA PLASTICIZER

z CI-o 100

lt 0762 030 - I--

IDP PLASTICIZER

z Z

a a z z

--- 1-shy

0508 I-I I I20

cn

0 20 40 60 80 100 FRACTION OF COARSE GROUND AN wt

Fig 3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN

3-96

C

Table 3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations -AP Particle Size Variation (HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

Ammonium perchloriate hammer mill ground (Micromerograph 50 wt point 9 gim)

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (Mieromerograph 50 wt point 63 pm)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 45 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Relative Castability

3-97

SB-98 ANH-16 Reference

1200

1500

200

200 shy

1700

2700

1500

1000

0653 (0257)

0810 (0319)

030

Good

castability

SB-110 ANH-16

1200

1500

200

200

1700

2700

1500

-

1000

0843 (0332)

0950 (0374)

017

Good castability

slightly more viscous than SB-98 (HMX)

1270 1 050

K K

CN4 E 0

1016 040 0

o 0

100

BURN RATE GOAL

z z

= 0762 - 030 D

z z

05081 I I I I 020 40 50 60 70- 80 90 100t

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) gm

Fig 3-16i Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-98

Table 3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Particle Size Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Copper chromite

As received (21 pm)

Attritor ground (17 pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground

Total

Relative castability

Brookfield end-of-mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F) Strand burning rates at 250C

(770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

3-99

SB-116 (Reference) SB-117

ANH-24A ANH-24B

1200 1200

1500 1500

200

- 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1500 1500

1000 1000

10000 10000

Good Good

168 136

0610 (0240) 0627 (0247)

0724 (0285) 0737 (0290)

028 024

As was observed with the ANAPAIHTPB propellant reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burn rates

Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better optimize the ballistic modifier system for the basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB propelshylant Previous to this point in the program the mixed ballisticmodifishyer system of 200 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) with 200 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was used It was desirable to reduce the total ballistic modifier level to less than 400 wt and recover some shy

performance (II delivered) Elimination of AD was also desirable because of its tendency to crosslink the R-45 prepolymer with subsequent degradation of propellant castability and physical properties Batches SB-132 (HMX) and SB-138 (HMX) were made using only as-receivedCU-0202 P as the ballistic modifier at the 200 wt and 300 wt levels respecshytively The objective of testing these two batches was to determine whether the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm

2

(1000 psia) could be achieved by using only CU-0202 P at levels less than 400 wt Brookfield end-of-mix and strandburning rates were measured on both batches Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-42 and they indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate achieved with 300 wt as-received CU-0202 P was 6nly 0810 cms (0319 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(2) Based on extrapolation the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) does not appear achievshyable even at 400 wt as-received CU-0202 P

(3) A mixed ballistic modifier system of AD and CU-0202 P appears necessary to meet the burning rate goal

The third batch SB-134 (HMX) was made using the mixed ballistic modifier system of 100 wt hammer mill ground (72 m) AD and 200 wt as-received CU-0202 P Brookfield viscosity and strand burning rates were also measured on this batch and results are also shown in Table 3-42 They indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate of 0879 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0346 ins at 1000 psia) was achieved with Batch SB-134 (HMX) This almost meets the goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosity of 21 kP at 520C (125 0 F) indicated the propellant had acceptable castability

Limited time and budget did not allow for any additional optimization of the ballistic modifier system Therefore Formulation ANH-33 [Batch SB-134 (HMX)] was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed inthe sections on Scale-Up and Ballistic Evaluation

3-100

---

Table 3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 [m

Ammonium dichromate Hamshymer mill ground 72 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

HMX Class E

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground 63 pm

Brookfield End-of-mix Viscosity kP at 520C (1250F)

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-132

ANH-34

1200

1500

200

2900

1500

1700

1000

10000

33

(500 psia) 0594 (0234)

At 690 Ncm2 0757 (0298) (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

3-101

SB-138 SB-134

ANH-32 ANH-33

1200 1200

1500 1500

300 200

--- 100

2800 2800

1500 1500

1700 1700

1000 1000

10000 10000

Could not 21 measure

0630 (0248) 0615 (0242)

0810 (0319) 0879 (0346)

036 051

In summary the following approaches were investigated as methods

of achievins faster propellant burning rates and the goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncmd (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(1) HMX class (particle size)

(2) HMX level

(3) Dimethyl silicone as ballistic modifier

(4) Finer AN particle size

(5) Finer AP particle size

(6) Finer CU-0202 P particle size

(7) Ballistic modifier type and level

Of these only (1) (2) (5) and (7) proved to be effective approaches

to faster burning rates

c Hazards Classification The Naval Ordnance Station (NOS) did some of the initial propellant hazard classification testing to define the maximum level of HMX which could be used and remain a Class 2 propellant The basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB formulation selected for testing was an 88 wt total solids HTPB (R-45) formulation with 150

wt aluminum and 10 wt ammonium perchlorate Tests were planned on formulations with and without the ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P Table 3-43 summarizes results of these hazard tests These results indicated that 20 wt Class E HMX (15 Mm)in non-ballistic modified formulations gave propellants which marginally met card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards) AP particle size appeared to affect card gap test results No firm conclusions could be made regarding the ballistic modified formulations

This effort to define the maximum HMX level for a Class 2 ballisshytic modified propellant was continued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with AFRPL support Card gap tests made on the ballistic modified formulations reported in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 are summarized in Table 3-44 for convenience

General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Maximum level of Class A HMX is greater than 1000 wt and less than 1500 wt for a ballistic modified formulation

to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

(2) Maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1500 wt and less than 2000 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

3-102

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Ingredients wt

AN (unground) 430 430 4776 4279 390 3862

AP 45p m 100 - - -

AP 6 [m - - 995 995 - -

AP 4 [m - 100- - - - -

AP 2 4m - - - - 100 99

HMX 15 pm 200 200 1493 1990 200 198

Al H-12 150 150 1493 1493 150 1485

HTPB Binder 120 120 1243 1243 120 1287

AD - - - - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

CU-0202 P - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

Lab Safety Tests

Impact sensitivity mm 375 375 350 275 -

Friction kg (lb) gt444 gt444 gt444 gt444 -

(980) (980) (980) (980)

ESD J gt125 L125 125 gt125

Field Safety Tests

Card gap cards 55 to 65 to 0 60 to 35 to 55 to 60 70 - 65 50 60

Cap neg neg neg neg neg neg

3-103

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data (Continuation 1)

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Unconfirmed burning neg neg neg neg neg neg

Critical dia cm (in) gt64 gt64 gt64 gt64 lt89 lt89 (25) (25) (25) (25) (35) (35)

aX-ray of samples showed evidence of voids

Table 3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A with Class E)

Batch No HMX Card Gap

Wt Class Positive Negative Cards

SB-88 10 A - 2 0 - 1 -35

SB-83 15 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-84 20 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-87 10 E - 2 0 - 1 35

SB-85A 15 E - 32 - 2 35

SB-86 20 E 1 - 35 1 70

Class E HMX was selected because higher levels could be incorporated and remain a Class 2 propellant and because it gave the best ballistic properties

3-104

Two additional small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better define the maximum level of Class E HMX The Class E HMX was varied to the 1900 wt and 1700 wt levels for Batches SB-97 (HMX) and SB-98 (HMX) respectively Card gap sensitivity strand burning rates and relative castability were measured in both batches Table 3-45 shows the test results These tests indicated the maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1900 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

The 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches were made varying Class E HIX level to 1500 1700 and 1750 wt Card gap verification tests were made on these batches as shown later in Table 3-49 and test results are summarized in Table 3-46

Results of all the tests indicated the maximum level of Class E IHMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt for a ballistic

) modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

d Processing Studies The relative castability of propellant was observed on the small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) development batches and used in the selection of formulations for evaluation in the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches Brookfield end-of-mix and pot life tests were measured on all of the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches

The coarse Class A HMX (W149 gim) has a better particle size than the fine Class E HMX (15 - 20 pm) for solids packing Consequently the Class A HMX yielded propellants with better castability than the Class E HMX (Table 3-35) However Class E HMX was selected for all the scale-up batches because higher HMX levels could be used and ballistic properties were better (faster burn rates and lower pressure exponents) The level of MX was generally limited by Class 2 card gap constraints before castability became unacceptable

The lower viscosity plasticizer IDP yielded propellants with significantly better castability than the plasticizer DOA with only a slight loss in propellant burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) (Tables 3-38 and 3-39) Therefore IDP was the selected plasticizer

Replacement of the very coarse unground AN prills by coarselyground AN improved castability but reduced propellant burning rate Consequently the fraction of AN coarse ground was limited to 34 to maximize burn rate consistent with good castability (Tables 3-38 and 3-39

Replacement of the hammer mill ground (90 14m) AP by the fluid energy mill ground (63 jim) AP made the propellant more viscous but castability remained good (Table 3-40) This change significantly increased propellant burning rate and made the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) achievable (Fig 3-16) Therefore the fluid energy mill ground AP (63 pm) was selected for use when it became available

3-105

Table 3-45 ANHMXAPAHTPB-Formulation-z HMX Level (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating)

Ammonium nitratecoatse -ground (US Steel with anticaking c6ating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative Castability shy

-

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards

55 Cards

69 Cards

3-166

SB-97 SB98 ANH-15 ANH-16

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1900 1700

-2500 2700

1500 1500

1000 1000

Good Good

castability castability

0678 (0267) 0653 (0257)

0826 (0325) 0810 (0319)

028 030

1---positive

--- 1 positive

4 positive 2 negative

---

---

---

---

---

Table 3-46 JPL Hazard Test Data (Class E)

HMX Batch No

Wt Class

SB-89 (HMX) 15 E

SB-92 (HMX) 15 E

SB-106 (HMX) 175 E

SB-141 (H4X) 17 E

Positive

4

3

I

I

I

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

2

1

Card Gap

Negative Cards

6 0

10 35

2 0

5

--- 10

--- 15

--- 20

--- 27

3 30

5 35

--- 69

2 70

--- 35

--- 60

--- 61

--- 62

3 63

1 65

10 69

3-107

Replacement of the as-received CU-0202 P (21 pm) by attritor ground CU-0202 P (17 pm) did not significantly affect propellant castashybility Since this change increased burning rate by only 2 the asshyreceived (21 pm) CU-0202 P was selected Increasing the Cu-0202 P level from 200 to 300 wt significantly increased propellant viscosity making it less castable (Table 3-42)

Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were shown to signifishycantly improve castability and pot life with the ANAPAlHTPB propellant After checking to determine these materials were compatible and safety properties were adequate these pot-life extenders were incorporated into the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant

e Combustion Problems The problem of incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered speciflc impulse was addressed for the basic ANHMXAPAlHTBP propellant early in the program Two approaches evaluated to improve metal combustion I Land delivered specific impulse were

(1) Use of aluminummagnesium (AlMg) alloys

(2) Replacement of aluminum by magnesium

This work (by NOS) was done concurrently Mith the development -CV of the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant using conventional aluminum For convenience and clarity all of the NOS propellant development work done with the R-45 HTPB binder is reported and discussed in this section

Table 4-47 summarizes results of motor tests on ANHMXAPA1HTPB propellants with no ballistic modifiers Propellant formulation variations made were

(1) Total solids loading (87 to 88 wt )

(2) AP particle size (20 and 200 [m)

(3) HMX (Class E) level (20 and 30 wt )

(4) Metal level (15 to 20 wt ) shy

(5) Metal type (Al -and AlMg alloy)

The motors tested were either 4536-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors or 1814-kg (40-1b) charge (FPC) motors at sea level conditions Corrections to vacuum conditions with E = 685 were made as shown in Table 4-47 General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Motor burning rates at 483 Ncm2 (700 psia) were all in the range of 0356 to 0457 cms (014 to 018 ins) Ballistic modifiers are required to meet burning rate goal of 089 Ncm2 (035 ins) with a pressure exponent of

042

3-108

Table 3-47 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation

Specific Impulse

Propellant Data N-skg (s)

Burning rate at 483 Ncm

2

AP Vacuumd (700 psi)Motor Percent Particle Percent Percent

Typeb of AP Size m of HMX of Metal Type of Metal Delivered c = 685 cms (ins)

TPC 10 200 20 20 Aluminum 19476 (1986) 0356 (014)

20 19 AlMg (9010) 19760 (2015) 21633 (2206) 0381 (015)TPCa 200

TPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 21114 (2153) 22271 (2271) 0381 (015)

TPC 200 20 15 AlMg (9010) 20359 (2076) 20908 (2312) 0356 (014)

0 TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20398 (2080) 22467 (2291) 0356 (014)

TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23134 (2358) 0356 (014)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 21045 (2146) 23222 (2368) 0457 (018)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23242 (2370) 0457 (018)

FPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 19192 (1957) 21898 (2233) 0445 (0175)

00 wt total solids loaded propellant the remainder are 88 wt a87 bTPC are 4536-kg (10-1b) charge motor grains

CFPC are 1814-kg (40-1b) charge motor grains dAll motor tests were made at sea level Correction to vacuum conditi6ns was made as follows

fFdt me + Pa Aeta Vac Isp ms =

CF Creq

Correction to desired expansion ratio (c req) was done by multiplying vac Isp ms by C

CF C act

(2) The maximum vac Isp ms e = 685 obtained for this series of tests were 23242 N-skg (2370 s) This was obtained using 15 wt conventional Al 20 wt Class E HMX and 10 wt 20 jim AP The performance goal was vac Isp ms

E = 71 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(3) Reducing the AP particle size from 200 to 20 gm significantly improved vac Isp ms pound1177 N-skg (C12s)] and increased

burning rate

(4) Increasing the Class E HMX level from 20 to 30 wt signishyficantly increased vac Is ms 686 N-skg (-7 s) However propellant with 30 wt C ass E HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Increasing the metal level from 15 wt to 19 or 20 wt significantly reduced vac inpMs

(6) Replacement of the conventional aluminum by the AlMg alloy

(9010) appeared to give a small performance gain 392 N-skg (14 s) However the data was too limited to draw

firm conclusions

Propellant development effort was continued in an effort to achieve the performance goals The ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P were selected based on work done by JPL In addition finer AP particle sizes were selected based on the ability of this approach to achieve both improved performance and faster burning rates A Class E HMX level of 20 wt O was selected as the maximum to meet card gap requirements for Class 2 propellants based on card gap tests available at that time Table 3-48 summarizes motor test and theoretical performance results on the three ballisttc modified propellant formulations evaluated Formushylation 2A used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system 10 wt 55 Jim AP and 15 wt conventional aluminum Formulation 2Bused 1 wt AD as ballistic modifier 10 wt 10 gm AP and 15 wt AlMg alloy (9010) Formulation 2C used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system no AP and 15 wt magnesium The motor test results shown are all from 45-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors Since several formulation variables were varied between the three formulations it is not possible to isolate just the effect of metal type on propellant performance However the following general conclusions can be made from this work

(1) Formulation 2A which used conventional aluminum was the most promising candidate The vac Isp ms E = 684of 24144 N-skg (2462 s) met the goal of vac Isp Ms E = 71 -2403 N-sks (245 s) Burning rate achieved was 076 cms at 483 Ncm (030 ins at 700 psia) compared to the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with a pressure exponent _04

(2) Formulation 2B which used the AlMg alloy (9010) had a theiretical Isp (1000147) nearly the same as formulashy

tion 2A but Vac Isp msC = 684 was only 23252 N-skg(2371 s) In addition the burning rate was only 053

3-10

---

---

Table 3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured

Propellant No

Ingredients wt

AN

AP

HMX (15 pm)

Al

AlMg alloy (9010)

Mg

AD

CU-0202 P

R-45M

DOA

Theoretical Density gcm 3

(lbin3 )

Theoretical I

(Iooo147 )a Lcm 2 (s)

Measured Isp N-skg (s) at e = 55

2A

410

100 (55 fim)

200

150

10

10

80

40

17051

(00616)

24978

(2547)

22810 (2326)

Measured Vac Is N-skg (s) 24144 corr to E = 68 (2462)

Burn rate at 483 Ncm3

(700 psia) cms 076 (ins) (030)

2B 2C

420 510

100 (10 pm) --shy

200 200

150 --shy

--- 150

10 10

--- 10

100 80

20 40

16829 16027

(00608) (00579)

24958 23997 (2545) (2447)

21310 20113 (2173) (2051)

23252 22673 (2371) (2312)

053 041 (021) (016)

aStandard Conditions Chamber pressure of 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and expanded to 1 atm (147 psia)

3-111

cms at 483 Ncm2 (021 ins at 700 psia) for this formulation This data suggests that there was no performance advantage in using the AlMg alloy compared to conventional aluminum

(3) Formulation 2C which used magnesium as the metal had theoshyretical density and theoretical Isp (1000147) values significantly lower than formulation 2A The measured Isp and burning rates confirmed that this was-the least attractive of the three formulations

This work was ended at this stage of the program Good Isp efficiencies were being achieved with conventional aluminum using 10 wt fine particlesize AP and the selected ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P

f Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Four formulashytions were selected for scale-up evaluation and motor tests throughout the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant development effort Table 3-49 shows these four formulations Major changes in the formulations which were made as a result of the development effort on the small scale were

(1) dhange from DOAt lower viscbsity lasti6izdr IDP to improveshycastability

(2) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH to improve castability and pot life

(3) Reductions of the total ballistic modifier level from 400 wt to 300 wt to improve performance

(4) Selection of 17 wt ClassE HMX to achieve maximum performance and burning rate within the constraint of a Class 2 propellant

(5) Changes in the AN type to the higher density harder prill Monsanto AN to improve castability and burn rate control

(6) Change from hammer mill ground 8-9 gm AP to the finer fluid energy mill ground 63 Itm AP to achieve faster burning rates

All four formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into 5 x 10 motors BATES motors and small-scale samples The motors were successfully tested and results are summarized and discussed in Subsection g Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

3-112

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No SB-89 SB-92 SB-106 SB-141

Formulation No ANH-9 ANH-12 ANH-18 ANH-33

Batch size kg (ib) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Ingredients wt

R-45 polymer 6470 6582 6528 6397

DOA plasticizer 4613

IDP plasticizer --- 4647 4609 4615

)OA plasticizer (HMX coating) 0187 0153 0191 0185

Lirosperse 11 P 0113 0113 0113 0113

UOP-36 0040

DTBH --- --- --- 0040

IPDI 0617 0559 0559 0610

Ammonium dichromate (ground 7 Mm) 200 200 200 100

Copper chromite (as received 21 pm) 200 200 200 200

Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500

--- --- ---

---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil U S Steel Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

U S Steel Monsanto ---

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8-9 Am fluid energy mill ground 63 Am

Totals

Brookfield apparent viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) (Viscosity kPtime after curative addition)

End-of-mix

(Continuation 1)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

1500

4400

1000

10000

2208 2018 2128

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

1500

2900

1500

1000

10000

1609 2819 2929 4139 4149

SB-106 SB-141

ANH-18 ANH-33

104 (230) 113 (250)

1750 1700

2900 2800

1250 1500

1000 --shy1000

10000 10000

1008 708 1418 1318 2228 1527 2438 2137

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Nam 2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm (750 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

20 cards 27 cards 30 cards 35 cards 60 cards 61 cards 62 cards 63 cards

65 cards

(Continuation 2)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

0599 (0236)

0721 (0284)

027

6 negative 4 positive

10 negative

---

---

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

0503 (0198) 0617 (0243) 0691 (0272) 0775 (0305)

031

2 negative 3 positive 1 positive 1 positive 3 negative 5 negative

SB-106

ANH-18

104 (230)

0566 (0223) 0683 (0269) 0767 Co302) 0818 (0322)

027

SB-141

AHN-33

113 (250)

0544 (0214) 0622 (0245) 0719 (0283) 0805 (0317)

037

1 positive 1 positive 2 positive 3 negative

1 positive 1 negative

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type (Continuation 3)

SB-89 SB-92 SB-I06 SB-141Batch No

Formulation No ANH9 ANH-12 ANH-18 AHN-33

Batch size kg (lb) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Card Gap Tests (Contd)

69 cards --- --- --- 10 negative

70cards --- --- 2 negative 6 positive

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770 F) gcm3 (lbin3 ) 16746 (00605) 16359 (00591) 16691 (00603) 16663 (00602)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties

Sm 1cm 2 (psi) --- 49 (71) --- 64

em --- 19 --- 68

44 (64)--- 49 (71) ---Sb Ncm 2 (psi)

68eb --- 19 ---

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-49 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) End-of-mix viscosities and pot life improved as changes were made to IDP plasticizer use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH and Monsanto AN End-of-mix viscosity for batch SB-141 (HMX) was 7 kP at 520C (125 0 F) and pot life was greater than 37 h

(2) Faster burning rates were achieved as the HNX level was increased as the Gulf Oil AN was replaced by US Steel AN and then by Monsanto AN and as the hammer mill ground AP was replaced by the finer fluid energy mill ground AP

(3) Maximum strand burning rate achieved at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) was 081 cms (032 ins) with batch SB-106 (HMX)

(4) Strand pressure exponents on all four formulations were in the range of 027 to 037 Motor pressure exponents were lower than strand pressure exponents These low-pressure exponents are advantageous and meet the goal of lt042

(5) Card gap tests verified that the maximum level-of Class E HMX which meets the card gap requirements for a Class 2 propellant is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt

(6) Measured densities were in the range of 16359 to 16746 gcm3 (00591 to 00605 lbin3) for the four formulations

(7) The JANNAF uniaxial properties were oor with maximum stress values in the range of 44 to 49 Ncm (64 to 71 psi) and strain at maximum stress values in the range of 19 to 68

g Ballistic Evaluation ANHMXAPAIHTPB Systems The candidate alternate propellant containing HMX was evaluated in BATES motor firings at three levels of HMX 150 170 and 175 The 150 HMX formulation yielded the highest measured Isp Theoretical calculations had shown 170 to 175 to be optimum for maximum Isp Data from the BATES motor tests suggests that the actual optimum HMX level is somewhere between 15 and 16 This level of HMX in the propellant has been demonstrated to be within the Class 2 requirement The ballistic test data for the three HMX systems follows

(1) Formulation ANH-12 (150 HMX) Figure 3-17 shows the burning rate KN and pressure exponent for this propellant The BATES motor test data is summarized in Table 3-50

(2) Formulation ANH-39 (170 HMX) The ballistic evaluation test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-18 and Table 3-51

3-117

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104 61524 1 1 1

41016-

-2 2lt E0508-

0 KN -IA BATES MOTOR DATA KN

100 1 -1 0264 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 1000 10

0 0203_ 800 -8 0152 n 0310152 600 6

D 0102 - 400 -4

0051 - 200 - 2

I I I I 100025 1 -2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895 2

PRESSURE Ncm

Figure 3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92

3-n18

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No E-1466 E-1467

Test Date Nov 14 1975 Nov 26 1975

BatchChange No SB-921 SB-922

Nozzle Bt initial 4699 3764 cm (in) (1850) (1482)

Nozzle Dt final 4374 3571 cm (in) (1722) (1406)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 2981 2979 (6572) (6567)

Wp expended kg (ib) 29395 2940

(64806) (6482)

wt expended 986 987

Web thickness cm (in) 45789 4610 (18207) (1815)

tb (burn time) s 735 586

ta (action time) s 764 624

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 310 531 (450) (770)

PC max Ncm2 (psia) 386 731 (560) (1060)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 376 702 (545) (1018)

AP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26245 41056 (38066) (59547)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26779 42285 (38840) (61329)

3-119

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

Pa (3P dttb) Ncm2

(psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

It (1F dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion Ratio

E-1466

Nov 14 1975

SB-921

3511 (5179)

0630 (0248)

2253

2411

14507 (47594)

962

6193679 (1392395)

842675 (189441)

6198003 (1393367)

207921 (21202)

9249

237546 (24223)

70

E-1467

Nov 26 1975

SB-922

7006 (10162)

0787 (0310)

3511

3689

14983 k49156)

1006

6349309 (1427382)

1083497 (24358)

6559790 (147470)

220218 (22456)

916

235526 (24017)

70

3-120

PRESSURE psia

10 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 104 1524 I 6

1016 4

0508 0- 2

u KN A BATES MOTOR TESTS N

0254 - 1000 10lt 2 0 5x 10 MOTOR TESTS 8 - 1

0203800g- 8

Z 0152 n 037 600 6 z z

0102 400 4

0051 -- 200 2

I I1 -2

0025 69 138 345 690 1379 t 3447 6895

-PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 AHHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-141

3-121

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 PropellantTable 3-51

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

E-1490E-1489Run No

62376 62476Test Date

SB-1412 SB-1411BatchChange No

352684572Nozzle Dt initial cm (in) (1800) (13885)

3444Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 4531

(1784) (1356)

30133017W loaded kg (ib) (6651) (6643)

29332938Wp expended kg (lb) (6477) (6466)

97339738 wt expended

Web thickness cm (in) 4633 4643 (1824) (1828)

570747tb (burn time) s

638 ta (action time) S

794

Pc initialNem2 (psia) 345 683 (500) (990)

362 Pc maximum Ncm2 (psia) 752 (525) (1090)

Pc final Ncm2 N(psia) 324 649 (470) (942)

41665fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 25961 (37654) (6043)

ft dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26554 42802 (6208)(38514)

Pc ( P dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 347 731 (524) (1060)

3-122

Table 3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

r at P0 cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

F dt (tb) Ns (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

it cfF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion ratio (E)

De cm (in)

2Ae cm (in2 )

3-123

E-1489 E-1490

62376 62476

SB-1412 SB-1411

0620 0815 (0244) (0321)

2330 3989

2395 4077

143Q7 13540 (46940) (44421)

945 895

5979680 6258348 (1344286) (1406933)

8007 10978 (1800) (2468)

60958 64441 (13704) (14487) 202056 21388

(20604) (2181)

887 872

23183 22810 (2364) (2326)

716 716

12233 9426 (4816) (3711)

117522 69781 (18216) (10816)

(3) Formulation ANH-18 (175 HMX) The ballistic evaluation

test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-19 and Table 3-52

h Summary Two ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant formulations were developed that conformed to the program constraints for 3 wt HCl in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards classification These two formulations are ANH-12 (15 wt Class E HMX) and ANH-33 (17 wt Class E HMX) Table 3-53 summarizes and compares the properties of these two formulations versus the program goals Both formulations met the goals for pressure exponent and hazard classification but not the goal for burning rateor delivered vacuum I

The following summarizes the status of the ANH4XAPAlHTPB propellant development

(1) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic propellants

(2) Demonstrated the propellant is Class 2 with levels of Class E HMX up to 17 wt

(3) Demonstrated good castability and pot life greater than 37 h for formulations with 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(4) Successfully loaded and test fired 45-kg (10-1b) motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with formulations containing 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(5) Demonstrated a delivered vacuum Isp (E = 716) of 23752 N-skg (2422 s) with formulation ANH-12

(6) Demonstrated a BATES motor burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) and a pressure exponent of 037 with formulation ANH-33

(7) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

(8) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 150 and 170

11 Baseline PBAN Propellant Modification

The current baseline propellant system in the Shuttle SRM is

an 86 solids 16 aluminum PBAN propellant developed by the Thiokol Corporation This baseline propellant has a burning rate of approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) pressure In order to simplify the task of matching the burning rates of the alternate propellant and the PBAN baseline-propellant at 400Ncm2 (580 psia)

-3-124

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 103

1524 I 6

1016 - 4

A BATES MOTOR DATA 0508 - 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 20508 n =031

E -_ Ko

U IN

u- 0254 - -1000 10shy0203 -800 8

oD 0 z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0102 - 400 4

0051 200 2

0025 I I I0 - 2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Figure 3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-106

3-125

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HNX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

Nozzle Dt initial 4592 3543 cm (in) (1808) (1395)

Nozzle Dt final 4463 3388 cm (in) (1757) (1334)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3022 3023 (6662) (6664)

Wp expended kg (ib) 2956 2957

(6516) (6519)

Wt expended 9781 9782

Web thickness cm (in) 4615 4615 (1817) (1817)

tb (burn time) s 788 - 628

ta (action time) s 818 665

PC initial Ncm2 (psia) 248 483 (360) (700)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 352 717 (510) (1040)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 296 622 (430) (902)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 262146 42991 (380212) (62353)

fp dt (ta) N-scm 2 (lb-s) 265874 44074 (385619) (63924)

3-126

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HMX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 1471 3026 (4825) (9929)

r at Pc cms (ins) 0587 0734 (0231) (0289)

KN initial 2353 3953

KN average 2421 4131

C ms (fts) 14159 13741 (46425) (45083)

C efficiency 945 916

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 599055 6320560 (134673) (1420919)

F (fF dttb) N (ib) 7602 100645 (1709) (22626)

it (fF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s) 608823 6498885 (136869) (1461008)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 201478 215001 (20545) (21924)

Isp efficiency 8901 8868

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s) 231761 229240 (23633) (23376)

Expansion ratio 71 72

3-127

Table 3-53 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goal

Achieved Value

Alternate Propellant SB-92 (HMX) SB-141 (HMX)

Property Goal ANH-12 ANH-33 (15 HMX) (17 HMX)

Burning Rate at 089 0785 0813 690 Ncm 2 (035) (0309) (032) (1000 psia) BATES Motor cms (ins)

Pressure Exponent lt042 032 037 BATES motor

Delivered Vacuum 2403 23732 23183 Isp N-skg (s) (gt245) (2422) (2364)

71)

HCl in Exhaust 3

Meets Card Gap Requirement for Class 2 yes yes Class 2 required (negative (negative

at 30 cards) at 30 cards)

pressure it was decided to miodify the baseline propellant system to

meet a burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) This modified baseline applies to the dual propellant concept with the alternate propellant only It does not apply to the current Shuttle design requirements The 081 cms (03 ins) burning rate has been achieved and demonstrated in 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings The modified PBAN formulation is referred to in this report as the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

In modifying the basic PBAN formulation to meet the new burning

rate requirement a study was made of the effect on the burning rate of adjusting the Fe203 burning rate catalyst concentration and the

particle size blend of the AP oxidizer The desired burning rate was achieved with a formulation containing a biomodal blend of

Table 3-54 gives the final formulationoxidizer and 0 Fe203 the density and some burning characteristics of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

3-128

Table 3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend

Ingredients Wt

Ammonium perchlorate

200 pm 4900 10 pm 2100

Aluminum (Alcoa 1230) 1600

PBAN polymer 1204

DER-331 196

10000

Density 2500 (770F) = 17743 gcm3 (00641 lbin3 ) Burn Rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 081 cms (032 ins) Pressure exponent n = 0228 at I

345 Ncm 2 (00 psia) lt Pc lt 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

The burning rate of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant was verified by test firing several 5 x 10 motors using 45 kg (-10 lb) of propellant over a range of pressures Figure 3-20 shows the burning rates and corresponding Kn values The burning rate equation for this modified PBAN propellant based on the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings is

r = 00668 PC0228

3-129

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 8104

1524 6

1016- 4

0508 - 2

E K - 0 5x 10 MOTOR DATAshy

0254 - 1000 10 - 1

0203 n = 0228 800 8 z 0152- a = 00668 600 6

z z 0102 -400 4

200 20051

0025 _I _I I I 10-2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant)

Batch No SB-78

3-130

SECTION IV

UNWORKED AREAS

The program as originally planned included a significant effort in the development of the candidate alternate propellant physical propshyerties and checks to verify adequacy of candidate alternate propellant in the bipropellant grain The reduction of funds and scopeof the program left many of these tasks unworked If the alternate propelshylant concept for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Motor is pursued on another program then the following unworked areas should be worked

(1) Candidate alternate propellant physical property improvement

(2) Physical property characterization of unaged alternate

propellant

(3) Aging of alternate propellant

(4) Bipropellant interface bond unaged and aged

(5) Alternate propellant insulation interface bond unaged and aged

(6) Performance tests at altitude on candidate alternate propellant

(7) Motor tests with bipropellant grain

(8) Characterization of alternate propellant safety properties

The generally poor physical properties (primarily low strain) measured with both the ANAPAlHTPB and the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propelshylants are believed due primarily to the following causes

(1) Poor bond of the HTPB binder to the oxidizer particles

AN and HMX

(2) Crosslinking of the R-45 HTPB polymer through the double bonds caused by the acidity of AN

The approach planned to solve the poor bonding properties to the oxidizer particles was development of bonding agents for both the AN and the HMX Aerojet Solid Propulsion Company has demonstrated significantly improved physical properties in HMXAPAlHTPB propellants using polyureas as bonding agents Epoxides and polyureas were considered as candidate bonding agents for the AN Development of an acid scavengershywas considered as one of the approaches to the second cause of the poor physicals

4-1

SECTION V

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this alternate propellant development effort led to the following general conclusions

(1) It is technically feasible to minimize (lt_3 wt ) release of HCl above 1981 km (65000 ft)

(2) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants Formushylation ANH-12 is the best formulation developed to date

(3) Propellant with 17 wt Class E HMX meets card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(4) The basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant is the second most promshyising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants

(5) More than 1000 wt AP (gt3 HCI in propellant exhaust) is required in the ANAPAlHTPB propellant to meet the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) Formulation AN-71 with 2000 wt AP is the best formulation of this type developed to date

(6) The basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant (0 HCl) is the least promising candidate and probably not viable for achieving program goals

(7) A few of AP is essential to achieve good aluminum comshybustion

(8) Good castability and acceptable pot life were achieved with all three basic alternate propellants

(9) Additional development effort is needed to improve the physical properties of any of the candidate propellants

(10) The small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justify the potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradashytion

(11) The Monsanto phase stabilized E-2 AN is the preferred AN type because it has the best physical and handling propershyties at comparable cost compared to other AN types

(12) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 15 and 17

5-I

(13) With additional effort to optimize the formulation with regard to HMX level burning rate modifier level and oxidizer particle size the program goals ban be met with an ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant system

5-2

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM

SOLUBILITY OF MTN INI HYDROCARBON BINDER

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

MMORANDUM

From 2051BCTo 563 Via 205

Subj Solubility of MTN in hydrocarbon binder

1 A study was conducted to determine if MTN could be used in the R45 binder system for the NASA II propellant Dicetyladipate (DOA) would be used for a co-solvent

2 Figure 1 is a portion of a phase diagram for the MTN-DOA-R45 system Areas to the right of the curve are two phase Areas to the left of the curve are single phase The effect of temperature is also shown

3 For Figure 2 TP90B was used instead of DOA TP90B is not as effective a co-solvent as DOA

4 Beccause PPG-1225 (a polypropylene glycol) is soluble both in R45 afidMTN it also was invesrigated PFG-1225 has an advantage over DOA in that it is a reactive polymer and could contribute to the mechanical strength as well as providingco-solubility In Figure 3 a 5050 mixture of R45 and PGshy1225 was used for the starting material The solubility of MTN was determined Because PPG-1225 was not a very goodco-solvent DOA was added to enhance the solubility Areas to the right of the curve are two phase and areas to the left of the curve are single phase

5 For Figure 4 a starting material of 733 R-45 and 261 PPG-1225 was used DOA was used to enhance the solubility of MTN in the system

6 It was determined that adiponitrile was not solulle in R45 and therefore could not be used to replace DOA

7 It was determined that R-18 (a polyglycol adipate) was not soluble in R45 and therefore could not be used to replacePPG-1225

8 A sample from Figure 1 was cured with IPDI This will be used to evaluate the long term effect of the nitrate ester on the binder system

Enclosure (1)

A-i

OrNA PALi I

1

ROOM--H- 2 - I

____

-OM I H j 1 35 TEMPERATURE i TI I ItI

I I I I

25

I 3 0 Z _--_ _ _

i i ii

5 n

JI t II it

t - -- -

151 1 1H - IL I

i s _ _

I- III I I I

715

MTffN 20 2 P

Figure 1 So bility of DOA and TN plusmnn R-A5

A-2

- -

40

Lj

r -

11- f

- - iutm

30 HH

-4-

__I_ ____

~ I

~vt

_

[ I_ _ iJ

25 _ _ _

1 1kH I __ _ _ _- _ _ __ _ _

-H 71

- r T--- W 4J-W-L -- t ___ __

_ _ _ __ _ _

q----i- -

52

Figure2 Solubility o f P9BadM1 nR4

A-3

iplusmn II1 -shyI~hhiI4plusmnplusmnt~~t~ -

LL J-

rO zt_-il 4 it-T i -- - -- --a -- 4- shy

-- 4 tL ---L-C-- 1 ------ 13-F- --shy

--- 4 i

I _

I I --0F

L II

it I _ _ _- _ I___

I- - -- - - - ---- shy--_ _ __ __-L J _ _

I - i t1 hIIt -____I j I

-+4 4 1 - - - -I 7 _ -J shy______ _ 2---2--I_lc_

L L rI-T- r

4 -I - -t -- u

10 15 20 25 30 N

Figure 3 Solubility of DOA and LMN in 50 R-4550 PG-1225

A-4

1

35 f

it-lt-ir

II I II

303i-- h

4o

z5-11144_FLI Lb deg T - shy i

bull

25

- -

20

I

- i11 fI1I

Ii JIf j -shy

1 iifIF

I I j I

dstkj tji--4

-4--4 1

1

I0tLLIL t

I

1wi

IFI 4 I

r

iiL -shy plusmn4 4 - H _

64211

I

L3

M -44

t

-i-

__

5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 4 ltSolubility of DOA and MTN in 733 R-45267 PPG-1225

A-5

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

9 -Ifan 88 (or 84) solids loaded 6 polymeric binder system will give acceptable physical properties then the

following formulations should be investigated

R-45 PPG1225 DA MT__N Al AP 1HM AN

10 4360 - -40 20 15 20 44 16 36 24 15 10 20 43

5360 - 40 20 15 10 10 44 1-6 36 24 15 10 10 53

15 10 20 3960 - 66 34 44 16 62 38 15 10 20 39

To properly evaluate these they should be compared to

AL AP HMK ANR-45 DOA 5360 60 15 10 20

10 53100 20 15 20

A quick look at some of the theoretical results to date indishycate that these substit-utions of - MTNfor Inert polymer -may result ina gain of about18 pounds seclb in impulse and a gain of 0001 poundscu in in density

C EJOHNSON

Copy to 205 2051BC 2051C1 TDI

A-6

PU BLICATION79-29

Page 3: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

JPL PUBLICATION 79-29 -

Alternate PropellantProgram Phase I Final Report

FA Anderson W R West

July 1 1979

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of Technology Pasadena California

The research described in this publication was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology under NASA Contract No NAS7-100

-PREFACE

This final report describes the work done to develop candidate alternate propellants for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor

- This work was done by theSolid Propulsion and Environmental Systems Section Control and Energy Conversion Division of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville Alabama

iii

DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS

AD ammonium dichromate

AFRPL Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory

Ae exit area

Al aluminum

A1203 aluminum oxide

Afros Alrosperse

AN ammonium nitrate

AP ammonium perchlorate

BATES Ballistic Test and Evaluation System

C characteristic exhaust velocity

CU-0202 P copper chromite catalyst (trade name of Harshaw Chemical Co)

De exit diameter

DOA dioctyl adipate

DSC differential scanning calorimeter

Dt throat diameter

ESD electrostatic discharge

ETS Edwards Test Station

DTBH 25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone

eb elongation at break

em elongation at maximum stress

E expansion ratio

F thrust

F average thrust

FeF3 ferric fluoride

Fe203 iron oxide

FEM fluid energy mill

iv

HCI hydrogen chloride

HMX cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine

HTPB hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene-

IDP isodecyl pelargonate

IPDI isophorone diisocyanate

Isp0 specific impulse sea level optimum Pc 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) Isp ms measured specific impulse

it total impulse

KP potassium peroblorate

KN ratio of propellant burn area to throat area

kP kilopoise (1 kP = 100 N-sm2)

Mg magnesium

iam microns

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

n pressure exponent

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOS Naval Ordnance Station (Indian Head Md)

Pa ambient pressure

PHAN polybutadiene acrylic acid acrylonitrile terpolymer

Pe exit pressure

PC chamber pressure

PC average chamber pressure

PPG-1225 polypropylene glycol

Protech 2002 CSD proprietary metal-deactivating antioxidant (trade name)

r burning rate

hydroxy-terminated polyester

R-45M hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene

v

R-18

Sb tensile strength at break

SL opt sea level optimum

Sm maximum tensile strength

SRM solid rocket motor

ta action time

tb web burn time

tEWAT time at end of web action time

TMETN 111-trimethylolethane trinitrate

RAM-225 silicone oil in solvent (release agent)

UOP-36 N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine

UV ultraviolet

Nweight flow rate

W p Propellant weight

Zr Zirconium

p density

vi

ABSTRACT

This report documents the work done by the Caltech-Jet PropulsionLaboratory of NASA for the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA on a Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program The work was done as a Phase I follow-on effort to a previous Phase 0 feasibility study The program was designed to investigate three candidate propellant systems for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) which would eliminate or greatly reducethe amount of HC produced in the exhaust of the Shuttle SRM Ammonium nitrate was selected for consideration as the main oxidizer with ammonium perchlorate and the nitramine cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine (HMX) as secondary oxidizers The amount of ammonium perchlorate used was limited to an amount which would produce an exhaust containing no more than 3 HC1

Development work was carried out on three basic candidate propellantsystems (1) a mixed oxidizer of ammonium nitrate and ammonium perchlorate (2) a mixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate and HMX and (3) amixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate ammonium perchlorate and HMX All three systems contained 15 aluminum powder and had a total solids loading of 88 A urethane binder based on a hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene cured with a diisocyanate was selected as the binder system

The first and third propellant systems outlined above were developed to the point of successful scale-up and loading of 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes and successful test firing of 45-kg (10-1b) test motors and 32-kg(70-1b) BATES motors The second propellant system the ANHMX oxidizer system received only very limited development due to a out-back in both the funds and schedule time initially planned for this program All three propellants had satisfactory processing characteristics however at the 88 solids loading

The first and third propellant systems (the ANAP and the ANHMXAPoxidizer systems) were both also subjected to hazard testing and were demonstrated to conform to Class 2 hazard classification with HMX levels up to 17 wt in the HMX-containing propellant The second oxidizer combination system (the ANHMX) was not characterized as to hazards classification for the reasons mentioned earlier

The utilization of the low-Hl-producing alternate propellant was planned to be in ccmbinatidn with the current baseline PBAN propellantin a dual propellant design Therefore mutual compatibility between the two propellants was essential In order to lessen the severity of the burning rate requirement for the alternate propellant it was decided to decrease the burning rate specification for the PBAN baseline propellant to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) A modified baseline PBAN propellant formulation was therefore developed to conform to the lower burning rate specification It should be pointed out here that this modified baseline propellant system applies only to the dual propellantgrain design and does not relate in any way to the specifications of the present system being developed for the current Shuttle SRM The ballistic properties of the modified baseline PBAN propellant were demonstrated in several 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

vii

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION - 1-1

II SUMMARY- 2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPA1HTPB ------------------------- 2-2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXAlHTPB ------------------------ 2-2

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB --------------------- 2-2

D SYSTEM NO 4 MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE --------------- 2-3

III PHASE I PROGRAM -------------------------------------------- 3-1

A OBJECTIVE -------------------------------------------- 3-1

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS ---------------------------------- 3-1

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS ------------------------- 3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA ------------------------------------- 3-2

E PROGRAM APPROACH -------------------------------------- 3-2

F NOS PARTICIPATION ------------------------------------- 3-5

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE ------------ ---------------------- 3-5

H DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------- 3-6

IV UNWORKED AREAS --------------------------------------------- 4-1

V CONCLUSIONS ------------------------------------------------ 5-1

APPENDIX

A SOLUBILITY OF MTN IN HYDROCARBON BINDER -------------- A-i

Figures

3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB --------- 3-14

3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5 AP in ANAPAlHTPB --------- 315

ix

3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPAlHTPB -------------- 3-16

3-4 Specific Volume- of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature--------------------------------------- 3-26

3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ---------------------- 3-31

3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Gulf AN) ------------------- 3-39

3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-40

3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ---------------------------- 44

3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73 ---------------- 57

3-10 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74 ------ 3-58

3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTBP Propellants ---------------------------- 3-65

3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140 --------------- 74

3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-89

3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (HMX) Formulation ANH-9 ----------------------------------- 3-93

3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN ---------- 3-96

3-16 Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------ 3-98

3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92 -------------------------------------- 3-118

3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-11 ------------------------------------- 3-121

3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-l06 ------------------------------------- 3-125

x

3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant) Batch No SB-78 -------------------------------------- 3130

Tables

21 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ---------------------------------- 2-4

22 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-5

23 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-6

3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN ------------------------------------------- 3-7

3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN --------------------------------------- 3-9

3-3 Propellant Exhaust Composition ----------------------- 3-13

3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations ----------------------------------- 3-18

3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-20

3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-21

3-7 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received Properties ------------------------------------------- 3-23

3-8 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics -------------------------------------- 3-24

3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-28

3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P---------------------------------------- 3-32

3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-33

3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPA1HTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-36

3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-38

xi

3-14 Evaluation of-Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 42

3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 43

3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants -------------------------- 45

3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------- 48

3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------ 3-50

3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB

Propellants ------------------------------------------ 3-52

3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations --------- 54

3-21 BATES-Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant ---- 3-59

3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant ---- 3-61

3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Level Variations ----- 3-66

3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (2 Ballistic Modifier) ------------------- 3-68

3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation ---------- 3-70

3-26 BATES Motor Test Data Summary AN-71 Propellant ------ 3-72

3-27 AN4APAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goals --------------------------------------------- 3-75

3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests -Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------ 3-76

3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-77

3-30 ANHMXHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX) --------------- 3-79

3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------------ 3-81

3-32 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHNXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-82

xii

3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests ----------------------------------------shy 3-83

3-34 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) ------------------------------shy 3-85

3-35 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX) -----------------------------shy 3-87

3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)-----------shy 3-90

3-37 ANHNXADHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation ----------------------------- 3-91

3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX DOA Plasticizer)------------- 3-94

3-39 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX IDP Plasticizer)------------- 3-95

3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Particle Size Variation (MX) ------- ------------------------- 3-97

3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - BallisticModifier Particle Size Variation ------------------------------ 3-99

3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-101

3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data --------------------------------- 3-103

3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A With Class E)---------------------------------------- 3104

3-45 ANHMXAPAiHTPB Formulation - HMX Level (Class E HMX) ---------------------------------------- 3-106

t46-PL Hazard Test Data (Class E)----------------------- 3-107

M3-47 NOS Space ShuttleAlternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation ----------------------- 3-109

3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured -------- 3-111

3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

ANHMXAPHTPB Propellant Type ----------------------- 3-113

3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant ---- 3-119

3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-33 Propellant ---- 3-122

3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-18 Propellant ---- 3-126

xiii

3-53 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties-vs Goal ----------------------------------- 3-128

3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend --------------------------- --------------------- 3-129

xiv

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

This report presents results from the JPL study to investigatethe feasibility of developing an acceptable alternate propellant systemfor the Shuttle solid rocket motor (SEM) boosters based on the non-chlorine containing oxidizer ammonium nitrate (AN) The following basic criteria for this Phase 0 feasibility study were established by the NASA-MSFC

(1) A five-month feasibility study would be undertaken

(2) Any candidate propellants must conform to a hazards classishyfication of Class 2 as determined by card gap tests

(3) The propellant exhaust must not contain more than 3 HC Zero HCl was to be the goal

Following the above guidelines the JPL began a Phase Zero fiveshymonth feasibility program in September of 1974 (Ref 1) JPL was directedby MSFC to investigate four basic propellant systems mutually agreed upon by MSFC and JPL These four basic propellant systems were the following

(1) AN20 Albinder

(2) AN10 Albinder

(3) AN5 AP20 Albinder

(4) AN5 AP10 Albinder

Toward the end of the Phase 0 program the above four basic proshypellants had been developed to a point of scale-up of each formulation to 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes loading and test firing of 227-kg(5-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests Programresults at this point had demonstrated that

(1) Good processability of an 88 solids loaded ammonium nitrate propellant was possible (Previous to this workthe maximum solids achieved with ammonium nitrate systems was approximately 80)

(2) A few percent (5 to 10) of ammonium perchlorate as a co-oxidizer in the ammonium nitrate systems was essential to satisfactory aluminum combustion

(3) An aluminum content of 20 in the ammonium nitrate system was considerably above optimum for maximum delivered specific impulse

With these results serving as new guidelines a fifth formulation was developed and evaluated in BATES motor tests This propellant formulation

1-1

was an 88 solids formulation of the following composition 63 AN10 AP15 Al12 HTPB binder

The main conclusion drawn from the results of this five-month feasibility study was that with the necessary time and funds the develshyopment of an alternate propellant system for the Shuttle SRM based largely on ammonium nitrate as the oxidizer was feasible The fifth propellant described above was selected as a baseline candidate system and served as the basis for establishing the goals and criteria for a Phase I follow-on effort to this feasibility study

The concept for the utilization of the alternate propellant was a dual propellant solid rocket motor -The Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor would be manufactured containing the alternate low-HCl propellant first as an outer layer of propellant followed by an inner layer of the current PBAN propellant modified to the new burning rate requirement During a Shuttle vehicle launch the baseline PBAN propellant would burn for the first phase of Shuttle Booster operation At an altitude of approxshyimately 1981 km (65000 ft) the PBAN propellant would be expended and the burning transitioned into the low-HCl (less than 3 by weight of the exhaust products) alternate propellant The feasibility of a satisshyfactory transition from a propellant with an all-ammonium perchlorate oxidizer to one consisting primarily of ammonium nitrate oxidizer was also demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by successfully manufacshyturing and test firing a dual propellant BATES motor charge

1-2

SECTION II

SUMMARY

This summary is a general over-view of the Alternate Propellant Program A more detailed summary of each respective area of effort is included in the main body of this report The primary objective of the program was to develop a candidate alternate propellant for the Shuttle SRM boosters which would eliminate or minimize the HCl in the exhaust from the solid propellant boosters during operations above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude A set of program constraints was defined to serve as guidelines for the Phase I program effort Among the constraints was the requirements of a Class 2 hazards classification for any candidate propellant The detailed constraints have been outlined in the foregoing pages Along with these program guidelines specific goals were estabshylished that were as follows

(1) Propellant burning rate = 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) Propellant pressure exponent of the burning rate lt 042

(3) Vacuum delivered specific impulse gt 2402 N-skg (245 s) at an expansion ratio of 716

(4) Matched burning rates of the alternate propellant and the baseline PBAN propellant system at 400 Ncm2 (580 psia)

(5) HCl content of the propellant exhaust lt 3

Goal (4) also introduced the requirement of modifying the burning rate of the existing Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a burning rate requirement consistent with the foregoing goals for the alternate proshypellant The burning rate requirement for the modified Shuttle baseline propellant PBAN propellant was established to be 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) chamber pressure

Three basic propellant systems were defined as candidate systems to be developed within these constraints and guidelines The three systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

Based on the results from the Phase 0 program that preceded this Phase I program it was established that the aluminum content would be held constant at 15 wt in all formulations Also the AP content of the No 1 and No 3 system was to be 10 A status summary of each of the three alternate propellant systems and the modified PBAN Shuttle baseline propellant follows

2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPAlHTPB

This propellant system contains 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) and 15 aluminum powder The development has progressed through the static testing of 32-kg (70-1b) propellant charges in the BATES motor static testing being limited to sea level conditions A vacuum delivered Isp at an expansion ratio eof 70 corrected from the sea level data of 2281 N-skg (2326 s) has been demonstrated This measured value of Is is equivalent to 888 of the theoretical value at the test condiions A burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) of 0546 cms (0215 ins) with a pressure exponent of the burning rate of 0278 has also been demonstrated with BATES motor firings As can be seen the Isp and burning rate goals have not been attained whereas the pressure exponent goal has been exceeded by a considerable margin It is doubtful at this point whether the Isp or the burning rate goals can be achieved with this basic system within the present program conshystraints One way of achieving the ballistic goals would be to increase the AP content of this propellant To do so however would increase the HC content of the exhaust above that of the current exhaust conshystraint of not more than 3 wt of HC1

In order to meet the specific impulse and burning rate goals a propellant formulation containing 20 wt of AP was developed and tested first in 45-kg (10-1b) motors followed by two 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings The specific impulse goal of 2402 N-hkg (245 s) was attained with this propellant The burning rate at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) exceeded the 089-cms (035-ins) goal A burning rate of 097 cms (038 ins) was measured The pressure exponent measure was 048 which is higher than the goal However it is believed that this pressure exponent can be reduced The HC1 content in the exhaust at an expansion ratio of 716 is calculated to be 6 wt This 6 HC1 still represents an 80 reduction in the HC1 content from that of the baseline PBAN propellant system The-hazards classification of the ANAPA1HTPB system is Class 2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXA1HTPB

This system contains 15 aluminum also but no AP Due to a cutback in projected program funds however thedecision was made to discontinue the development of this system This decision was made very early in the development phase of this propellant and therefore no useful ballistic data is available at this time

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB

Of the three alternate propellant systems initially planned for development this system is the best candidate to date for meeting all the program goals Theoretical calculations showed that the maximum specific impulse for this propellant system was in the range of 170 to 175 HMX (Table 3-2) Therefore this system with three levels of HMX was developed scaled up to 113-kg (250-1b) mixes and loaded and test fired in 45-kg (10-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b)

2-2

BATES motor firing Of the three levels of HMX evaluated in motor firing the highest ISD was measured with the formulation containing 15 wt HMX showing that the experimental optimum HMX level- is somewhat less than 17 wt for this system The 15 and 17 wt HMX formulations were demonstrated to be Class 2 whereas the 175 wt HMX propellant was borderline Class 7

Preliminary results from Crawford Bomb burning rates showed a burning rate of 0950 cms (0374 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) for the 17 wt HMX formulation Time did not permit verifying this burning rate in motor tests prior to committing to the scale-up and loading of the 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors However indications -were that the 089-cms (035-ins) burning rate would be achieved in motor tests with 3 ballistic modifier in the formulation -- a cutback from the 4 in the other two HMX formulations In the interest of time a reduction in the ballistic modifier (a mixed burning rate catalyst) of 1 was made in the scale-up propellant batch from which the BATES motors were loaded Unfortunately this was too large a reduction in modifier and test results from firing the BATES motors showed a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) for the 17 wt HMX formulation (ANH-33)

The formulations of the five candidate alternate propellants and the modified PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 2-1 Table 2-2 lists the theoretical ballistic properties of the six propelshylants and also the HCi and A1203 (particulates) contents Table 2-3 summarizes the measured performance values as determined by BATES motor firings The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions with nozzle expansion ratios of 716 The measured sea level values were then corrected to vacuum values by the following equation

PeAe I vac ms =-I5 pact ms

D SYSTEM NO i MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE

The work statement of this Alternate Propqllant Program also called for modifying the current Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) while not changing the major ballistic properties such as I__ of the system This effort has been completed and the 081-cms (032-ins) burning rate met and demonstrated in motor firings The desired modification was accomplished by removing the iron oxide burningshyrate catalysts (Fe203 ) and adjusting the particle size blend of the oxidizer The burning-rate equation for this modified baseline is r = 00668 Pc0 228

A detailed discussion of the three candiate alternate propellant systems as well as the total program effort follows

2-3

Ingredients

Solids

AN

AP

HMX (Class E)

Al

Fe203

AD

CU-0202 P

Binder

HTPBe

PBANd

Table 2-1 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

TP-H1148a AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

86 88 88 88 88 88

-- 5900 5100 44o0 4300 4150

6960 1000 2000 1000 1000 1000

-- -- -- 1500 1700 1750

1600 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

040 b -- -- -- -shy

-- 200 -- 200 100 200

-- 200 200 200 200 200

-- 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

1400 -- -- -shy

aCurrent Shuttle baseline propellant also to be adjusted

bTo be adjusted

CCured with a diisocyanate (IPDI)

dCured with an epoxy (Der-331)

Table 2-2 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Parameter TP-H1148 AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Tf K 3471 2695 2845 2748 2765 2756

Te K

C ms (fts)

Isp0 N-skg (s)

2327

1371 (5155)

25723 (2623)

1563

1481 (4860)

24203 (2468)

1678

1568 (4949)

24624 (2511)

1570

1505 (4937)

24507 (2499)

1575

1513 (4965)

24634 (2512)

1571

1509 (4950)

24556 (2504)

U Is vac (a E 716)N-skg (s)

27135 (2767)

25684 (2619)

26115 (2663)

26007 (2652)

26144 (2666)

26066 (2658)

HC in exhaust 209 303 61 303 303 303

A1203 in exhaust 302 283 283 283 283 28

Table 2-3 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Ballistic Property

Program Goal

AN-25

Candidate Propellant Test Resultsa

AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

C ms (fts) - 1432 1460 1450 1431 1415

(4700) (4791) (4759) (4694) (4643)

C efficiency - 953 972 962 945 945

Isp vac at E = 716 N-skg (s)

_gt2403 (245)

22849 (2330)

24026 (2450)

23752 (2422)

23183 (2364)

23173 (2363)

Isp efficiency 888 923 912 887 8901

Burning rate cms at 690 Ncm2 (ins at 1000 psia)

gt_089 (035)

053 (021)

097 (0 38 )b

079 (031)

081 (032)

074 (029)

Pressure exponent n lt042 028 048 031 037 031

Hazard

classification 2 2 2 2 2 7 (marginal)

aTest data from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings at PC 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

bData point based on 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

SECTION III

PHASE I PROGRAM

A OBJECTIVE

The program objective of the Phase I program the results of which are documented in this report was to develop an alternate propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster motors which would eliminate or minimize the H1 in the exhaust from the motors

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS

The Phase I development effort was conducted within some very specific constraints These program constraints were

(1) Minimize the design impact on the present solid booster

(2) Eliminate or minimize Llt 3) the HC1 release from the booster motors during operation above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude

(3) Any candidate alternate propellant must confori to a Class 2 hazards classification

(4) The program was to be conducted within government as a contingency

(5) The payload schedule and cost impact of the Phase I effort on the Shuttle project were to be assessed concurrently

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS

Three basic pandidate propellant systems were selected for consideration in this development program These propellant systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

In addition to the above three completely new propellant systems a modification of the current baseline PBAN propellant was to be made This modification consisted of adjusting the burning rate of the PBAN propellant to a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) [The baseline PBAN propellant burning rate was approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)]

3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA

As has been stated the criteria for the Phase I program effort was established as a result of the Phase 0 feasibility study The scope of effort and propellant performance goals thus established were as follows

(1) Initiate the development of three basic candidate alternate propellant systems

(2) Modify the current Shuttle baseline PHAN propellant to meet

the new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins)

(3) The propellant performance goals were

(a) Burning rate = 689 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(b) Pressure exponent lt 042

(c) Delivered vacuum specific impulse at an expansion ratio of 716 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(d) Theburning rates of the candidate alternate propellants and the Shuttle baseline PBAN propellant should be matched at a pressure of 400 Ncm 2 (580 psia)

(e) HCI in the exhaust _ 3

(4) The development program was to include in addition to - the above

(a) Processing studies

(b) Physical property studies

(c) ropellant aging studies

(d) Propellant hazards classification testing

(e) Propellant performance testing

(f) Investigation of the compatibility between the alternate propellant and the current baseline PBAN propellant and between the alternate propellant and the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) insulation

E PROGRAM APPROACH

The following outline details the general approach taken in the investigation of the various aspects of this program

3-2

1 Theoretical Studies

() Maximize delivered specific impulse at 88 solids

(a) Aluminum content

(b) HMX content

(c) High-energy plasticizer content (TMETN)

2 Burning Rate Studies 089 cms (035 ins) Goal

(1) Particle size blend of oxidizer

(2) Investigate and compare catalyst type and concentration

(a) Fe203

(b) Ferrocene

(c) Milori blue

(d) CU-0202 P shy

(e) Inert plasticizer level (DOA)

(f) High-energy plasticizer (TMETN)

(g) HMX

(h) Zirconium powder

(i) Other

Burning rates to be determined via Crawford Bomb strand burning and 5 x 6 motor tests

3 Physical Property Studies

(1) Binder stoichiometry

(2) Plasticizer level and type

(a) Free plasticizer

(b) Internal plasticizer (chemically bonded)

(3) Degree of crosslinking

(4) Cure time and temperature

3-3

Evaluate properties Tensile strength

Elongation

Modulus

Hardness

Density

4 Processing Studies

(1) Process variables

(a) Mixer speeds

(b) Mix duration

(c) Ingredient addition sequence

(d) Other

5 Compatibility Studies

(1) PBAN propellant to alternate propellant bond

(a) As cured surfaces

(b) Machined surfaces

(2) Alternate propellant to insulation bond

6 Safety Hazard Tests

(I) Card gap

(2) Impact

(3) Auto-ignition shy

(4) Blast~ng cap

(5) Friction sensitivity

(6) Spark sensitivity

3-4

7 Aging Studies

(1) Propellant aging-physical properties

(a) Ambient temperature

(2) Propellant-propellant bond

(a) Ambient temperature

8 Motor Testing

(1) 5 x 6 motors - pressure only

(2) BATES motors - pressure and thrust

9 Shuttle Baseiine Propellant Modification

Adjust burning rate to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

F NOS PARTICIPATION

The Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head Maryland wLs funded by JPL to participate in certain aspects of the Alternate Propellant Program This funding of the NOS was a relatively low level of funding and designed to support the program through the investigation of certain very specific tasks The general areas of the NOS participation were

(1) Investigation of the solubility of the high-energy plasticizer TMETN in (a) R-45 HTPB polymer and (b) R-45 HTPB polymerDOA plasticizer

(2) Determine the limits of TMETN for a Class 2 propellant in an (a) all AN propellant system (b) ANAP system and (c) ANAPHMX system

(3) Investigation of the limits of HMX Ior a Class 2 inert binder propellent

(4) Hazards testing of candidate propellant formulations

(5) Investigation of HMX and AP particle size ef~eots and ballistic modifier effects on candidate propellant ballistics

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE

The Phase I effort of the Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program began April 1 1975 as an 18-month program The program schedule was later revised and lengthened to a 30-month program Much later in the program (April 1976) following several revisions to the program

3-5

schedule the planned scope of effort was reduced and the schedule cut to

conclude the program on June 30 1976 This reduction in scope and schedule

time became necessary due to a cut in the anticipated program funds

H DISCUSSION

Theoretical Studies

As has been discussed in the introduction to this report the Phase 0 feasibility study (Ref 1) results established the basis for

the Phase I effort Theoretical studies had been conducted during the Phase 0 work analyzing the effects of solids loading oxidizer ratios

binder composition etc on the thermoballistic properties of the proshy

pellant types under consideration Therefore at the start of the Phase I

program effort the guidelines for formulating the candidate alternate propellants to be developed were fairly well defined Consequently the

theoretical studies reported here involved only formulations with certain

constant parameters such as 88 total solids 15 aluminum and a binder based on plasticized HTPB

Table 3-1 gives summary tabulations of the primary thermoballistic properties of a number of candidate formulations containing AN AP and

HMX as oxidizers and the binder plasticized with the high-energy plasticizer

TMETN Iron oxide at the 1 level was included as a burning rate modifier The relevant Shuttle SRM baseline PBAN propellant properties are also shown in the table for reference As can be seen the formulation containing 25 HMX 10 AP and 25 TMETN plasticizer in the binder (12 HTPB binder) matches within 49 N-skg (05-s) specific impulse to that of the Shuttle baseline propellant That formulation however would be a Class 7 proshy

pellant and therefore could not be considered as a candidate

Table 3A2 shows the effects of varying the AP content the HMX conshy

tent and the type and content of the burning rate modifiers A combination

of ammonium dichromate (AD) and copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was selected

as the primary burning rate modifiers for this work Approximately two seconds of impulse difference is calculated for equal amounts of Fe203 and mixed AD and CU-0202 P (4 Fe203 versus 2 AD and 2 CU-0202 P) The calculations also show that for the 88 total solids system with 15 aluminum and 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) tpe theoretical optimum amount of HMX for maximum impulse is in the range of 17 to 175 The

experimental optimum HMX level for maximum delivered IsD however

appears to be something less than 17 wt This is eviaenced by the results from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests of propellants containing 150 170 and 175 HMX The measured ballistics of these formulations

are tabulated in Table 2-3 in the summary section of this report As will be seen in Table 2-3 the highest measured Isp with an HMX formulation

was with FormulationNumber ANH-12 which contains 150 HMX

These theoretical calculations referred to above were made using

a JPL computer program based on the minimization of free energy to

calculate both the equilibrium and frozen flow thermoballistic properties

of chemical compositions

3-6

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN

Formulationa Ballistics

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

AN AP HIX Al

TMETN in

Binder Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P T0 K C

ms (fts)

T (Sea Lcve Optimum) N-skg (s)

Vac 1 (c = 7)

N-skg (a)

Shuttle PBAN Baseline Propellantb(Density 17714 gcm 3 00640 lbin3) 3515 1578 (5176) 25752 (2626) 27136 k2767)

62 10 0 15 0 1 2825 1503 (4931) 24536 (2502) 25966 (2648)

62 10 0 15 10 1 2902 1511 (4956) 24674 (2516) 26095 (2661)

62 10 0 15 20 1 2977 1518 (4980) 24791 (2528) 26213 (2673)

62 10 0 15 25 1 2982 1521 (4991) 24850 (2534) 26272 (2679)

62 0 10 15 20 1 2910 1526 (5005) 24870 (2536) 26321 (2684)

52 0 20 15 20 1 2973 1546 (5072) 25174 (2567) 26645 (2717)

47 0 25 15 20 1 3005 1557 (5108) 25321 (2582) 26900 (2743)

62 0 10 15 25 1 2916 1529 (5016) 24929 (2542) 26380 (2690)

52 0 20 15 25 1 2978 1550 (5084) 25233 (257 ) 26704 (2723)

47 0 25 15 25 1 3010 1561 (5120) 25380 (2588) 26860 (2739)

52 10 10 15 10 1 2964 1532 (5028) 24968 (2546) 26419 (2694)

42 10 20 15 10 1 3027 1554 (5100) 25272 (2577) 26753 (2728)

37 10 25 15 10 1 3658 1565 (5136) 25419 (2592) 26909 (2744)

52 10 10 15 20 1 3039 1540 (5052) 25095 (2559) 26519 (2706)

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN (Continuation 1)

Formulationa Ballistics -

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier TMETN Is (Sea Vac L

in C Level Optimum) (E = 7 AN AP HMX Al Binder Fe203 AD CU-0202 P Tc K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

42 10 20 15 20 1 3102 1562 (5124) 25399 (2590) 26870 (2740)

37 10 25 15 20 1 3134 1573 (5160) 25546 (2605) 27037 (2757)

52 10 10 15 25 1 3044 1543 (5063) 25154 (2565) 26596 (2712)

42 10 20 15 25 1 3107 1565 (5135) 25448 (2595) 26929 (2746)

37 10 25 15 25 1 3138 1576 (5171) 25595 (2610) 27086 (2762)

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

bThe Shuttle baseline propellant has 16 Al 86$ total solids

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN

Formulation ballistics

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids)

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Pc = 690 Ncm

2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Moaifier

DensitygcM3

(lbin3 ) AN AP HMX Al

PropellantFormulation

No Fe2 0q AD CU-0202 P To K

C

Ms (fts)

Is (SeaLevel Optimum)

N-skg (s)

Vac ISp(E 7)

N-skg (s)

16634 (00601) 62 10 - 15 1 2728 1500 (4920) 24468 (2495) 25950 (2647)

0 16717 (00604) 61 10 - 15 2 2716 1490 (4887) 24320 (2480) 25801 (2631)

16800 (00607) 56 15 - 15 2 2778 1497 (4913) 24438 (2492) 25929 (2644)

16911 (00611) 51 20 - 15 2 2839 1505 (4938) -24566 (2505) 26046 (2656)

16994 (00614) 46 25 - 15 2 2904 1512 (4962) 24674 (2516) 26164 (2668)

17105 (00618) 41 30 - 15 2 2969 1519 (4985) 24791 (252b) 26282 (2680)

17188 (00621) 36 35 - 15 2 3032 1526 (5007) 24899 (2539) 24390 (2691)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 4 2692 1469 (4820) 24016 (2449) 25478 (2598)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 (AN-25) - 2 2 2695 1481 (4860) 24203 (2468) 25684 (2619)

16745 (0n605) 51 20 - 15 - 2 2841 1513 (4965) 24693 (2518) 26194 (26741)

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 1)

Pl1si~sFormulitiona

Theoreticl Equilibrium Flow Calculations = Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant IS (Sea Vac I gcm3 Formulation C Love Optimum) (c = 7) (lbin 3 ) AN PP HmX Pi No Fe20q AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg ()

16911 (00611) 51 20 15 (AN-71) 2 2845 1508 (4949) 24624 (2511) 26115 (266-)

16828 (00608) 51 20 15 1 1 2841 1511 (4957) 24654 (2514) 26145 (2666)

17160 (00620) 44 10 15 15 4 2748 1492 (4895) 24320 (2480) 25811 (2632)

17216 (00622) 42 10 17 15 4 2756 1495 (4906) 24360 (2484) 25850 (263b)

- ) 415 10 175 15 4 2581 1500 (4921) 25850 (2636)

) 40 10 190 15 4 2794 1495 (4906) 257b2 (2629)

39 10 200 15 4 2776 1490 (4888) 25723 (2623)

17049 (00616) 44 10 15 15 (ANH-12) - 2 2 2748 1504 (4937) 24507 (2499) 2007 (2652)

17077 (00617) 42 10 17 15 2 2 2754 1508 (4947) 24546 (2503) 26056 (2657)

17049 (00616) 4 10 17 15 (ANH-33) 1 2 2765 1513 (4965) 24634 (2512) 26145 (2666)

L

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 2)

BallisticsFormulations

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant is (Sea Vac Is gcm3 Formulation C Level Optimum) M (ibin3 ) AN AP HMX Al No Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

16828 (00608) 44 10 17 15 - - 2779 1525 (5005) 24781 (2527) 26311 (2683)

16994 (00614) 44 10 17 15 - 2 2784 1518 (4981) 24723 (2521) 26243 (2676)

16911 (00611) 44 10 17 15 - 1 1 2778 1522 (4994) 24752 (2524) 26272 (2679)

17077 1509 (4950) 24556 (2504) 26066 (2658)(00617) 415 10 175 15 (ANH-18) - 2 2 2757

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

2 Exhaust Products

The exhaust compositions of the five candidate propellants listed in Table 2-I in the report summary and that of the Shuttle PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 3-3 The exhaust species are shown as weight percent of the total exhaust and the exhaust composition is that at the exit plane of the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 716 calculated as the equilibrium composition

3 Combustion and Burning Rate

Two problems which were anticipated and confirmed as problems early in the Phase 0 program were low combustion efficiency and low burning rates of the aluminized ammonium nitrate propellant These subjects are discussed individually in the sections covering the different propellant systems However a few brief general comments will be made here

It was demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by way of 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings that a few percent of AP was essential in the ammonium nitrate propellants in order to effect satisfactory combustion of aluminum An 88 solids 15 Al ammonium nitrate formulation containing no AP was test fired in several 227-kg (5-1b) test motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors In each case large amounts of aluminum slag remained in the motors after firing Molten aluminum could be seen being ejected through the nozzle during the test firings Greatly improved combustion resulted from incorporating 5 AP in the formulation The incorporation of 10 AP resulted in virtually zero slag remaining in the motor Therefore 10 AP was selected as a standard for this Alternate Propellant Program The three photographs of BATES motor tests (Figs 3-1 to 3-3 containing 0 5 and 10 AP respectively in the formulations) show rather dramatically the effect of AP on the combustion The glowing streams in the 0 and 5 AP firings (greatly reduced in the 5 AP test however) are produced by molten aluminum

A second technique investigated as a combustion improvement techshynique was the incorporation of zirconium metal powder into the propellant The basis for this idea was due to the fact that zirconium powder has a much lower ignition temperature than that of aluminum powder and has a relatively high heat of combustion The idea was to take advantage of this lower ignition temperature of zirconium powder to facilitate the ignition and burning of the aluminum by igniting and burning and thereby supplying sufficient added heat to the system to more effectively ignite and burn the aluminum This technique however did not demonstrate any real improvement in the measured performance but rather a decrease and was therefore not investigated beyond the initial BATES motor test firings

3-12

Table 3-3 Propellant Exhaust Comsition

Propellant PBAN AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Solids 86 88 88 88 88 88 AP 6960 10 20 10 10 10 HMX - - - 15 17 175

Tel K 2327 1563 1678 1570 1575 1571

MoI Wt of Products 2756 2309 2360 2285 2275 2281

Speciesa wt

AlCl 00094 - - - -AIC10 00086 - - - shy

-A1C12 00098 - - -

AICI3 00053 - - - shy-AlHO2 00012 - - -

Cl 02961 - 00007 - -

CO 232928 189953 191619 256367 264700 267944 39486 61302 58679 46105 44899 42773CO2

Cr203(L) - 10020 02090 10020 06050 10020 Cu - 00038 00184 00044 00044 00044 CuC(L) - 14543 11840 14513 14475 14513 CUM - 00891 04188 00901 00940 00901

-Fe 00134 - - -

FeC12 05998 00621 00621 00596 00583 00583 H 00191 00001 00002 00001 00001 00001 H2 18804 29663 27301 32744 32941 33221

aCl 209284 30346 60149 30357 30346 30357 HO 00321 - 00002 - -

H20 101499 154534 157204 95971 91721 86539 85862 221739 203436 225998 228954 226707N2

NH3 - 00905 00003 00005 00005 00005 NO 00018 05780 - - shy

0 00005 shy02 00003 - - shy

A1203(C) 302097 283418 283418 283418 283418 283418

aConcentrations less than 1 x I0-5 moles100 g exhaust are omitted

L = liquid C = crystalline

3-13

ft

iI

Figure 3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

Imm

Figure 3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5$ AP in ANAPA1HTPB

go

Figure 3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

A third technique investigated was that of using a chromate-coated aluminum powder in place of the standard aluminum powder This techniquealso failed to produce increased combustion efficiency of the aluminum in the propellant

Specific burning rate subjects are discussed in the discussions of the different propellant systems however some general comments will be made here As can be seen in Table 3-2 the proper selection of a burning rate catalyst must be based on more than burning-rate considerations when a rigorous effort is made to maximize specific impulse As can be seen a significant difference is calculated for the theoretical Isp between incorporating the different burning rate modifiers at the same concentration Also the modifier used can have a strong effect on the physical properties of the propellant

4 Physical Properties

This effect of specific ingredients on the physical properties of an ammonium nitrate system arises from the fact that chemical reactions other than the normal curing reactions between the prepolymer and the curing agent enter into the overall curing reactions In most compositepropellant systems the physical properties are determined largely -in addition to binder type and solids loading by the degree of crosslinkingand completeness of reactions with available cure site6 In the ammonium nitrate system however it appears that free protons produced in the system react with the double bond in the prepolymer (HTPH) backbone causing crosslinks at these sites Ammonium dichromate appears to contribute in a greater way to this crosslinking at the double bonds than some of the other burning-rate modifiers investigated On the other hand the AD subtracts less from the calculated Isp The formulating and development of an AN system therefore is complicated by these considerations The physical property problems are greatly complicated Nonconventional techniques must be found and employed in the physical property considerations in order to develop satisfactory control of adequate physical properties

5 High-Energy Plasticizer Studies

One of the approaches investigated on the program was use of high-energy plasticizers td achieve higher delivered specific impulse propellants A review of available nitrate ester plasticizers indicated that TMETN (111-trimethylolethane trinitrate) was the most promising candidate This selection was made on the basis of overall considerations of compatibility performance cost and availability Theoretical performance calculations on some typical propellant formulations with 20 wt TMETN are shown in Table 3-4

Propellant development work on this effort was done by NOS (NavalOrdnance Station Indian Head Md) Two basic formulations were inshyvestigated one with no ammonium perchlorate and one with 5 wt ammonium perchlorate A polyester (R-18) binder was selected and initial development work was done at the 82 wt solids level with 1200 wt TMETN Small

3-17

Table 3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations

Formulation 1-A

Ammonium nitrate 360 Aluminum 180 R-18 60 HMX 100 TMETN 200 Ammonium perchlorate 100

1000

Density gcm3 17300 (lbin3 ) (00625)

Flame temperature 34314 K (OF) (5723)

Vacuum specific 27115 impulse N-skg (s) (2765) E = 716

Pc 483 Ncm2

(700 psi)

Weight percent 278 HC1 in exhaust

1-B

310 180 60 100 200 150

1000

17411 (00629)

3481 (5806)

27155 (2769)

417

1-C 1-D

410 410 180 180 60 60 50 -

200 200 100 150

1000 1000

17217 17244 (00622) (00623)

3410 3430 (5678) (5714)

26988 26880 (2752) (2741)

278 416

3-18

mixes were made to check ingredient compatibility and propellant laboratorysafety properties Results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-5 along with the formulations These tests indicated that the ingredients were compatible and safety properties were adequate The two formulations were then scaled up into larger batches and card gap samples were loaded and tested Both formulations were uncastable so that the card gapsamples had to be hand packed The card gap test results are shown in Table 3-5 and suggest both formulations meet the card gap requirementsfor Class 2 propellant (lt 70 cards) However these results may be biased to give lower card gap sensitivity because of voids in the samples

Four additional formulations were then evaluated at the reduced solids level of 74 wt to improve propellant castability The polyester(R-18) binder system was used and TMETN level was held constant at 20 wt The variations made with these four formulations were variations in the levels of HMX AP and AN All the formulations were eastable and card gap samples were prepared and tested on each The details of the formulations and card gap test results are summarized in Table 3-6 General conclusion from this work was that for this propellant systemwith 20 wt TMETN a maximum level of 5 to 10 wt HMX can be used and meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

Work with the polyester (R-18) binder system was terminated and shifted to the HTPB (R-45) binder system when the early experimentalwork indicated that program goals would probably not be achieved with the polyester (R-18) Initial tests by NOS showed the solubility of TMETN (also referred to as MTN) in R-45 at 210 C (700F) was less than 1 wt They then conducted cosolubility studies with other plasticizersComplete details of these studies are shown in Appendix A Summary conclusions from this effort are as follows

(1) R-18 and adiponitrile are not soluble in R-45M

(2) DOA is more effective as a coplasticizer than TP90B and PPG-1225

(3) Maximum theoretical performance gains possible by replaceshyment of DOA with TMETN within solubility limits are about 176 N-skg (18-s) impulse and 0028 gcm 3 (O001 lbin 3 ) density

A decision was made to terminate further work with TMETN at this point in the program Primary reason for the decision was that the small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justifythe potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradation

6 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrates

An evaluation of available ammonium nitrate (AN) types was made to provide a basis for selection of the AN in development of the propellant formulations Ammonium nitrate is the major oxidizer used in all

3-19

Table 3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations with TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids)

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder TMETN Aluminum HMX Ammonium perchlorate Ammonium nitrate

Initial card gap tests

0 Cards 35 Cards 50 Cards

70 Cards

Laboratory safety tests

Impact mm (3 consecutive positive values 5-kg weight)

Sliding friction kg (ib) 24 ms (8 fts)

Electrostatic discharge- J

(5000 V)

NOS SCC-74-69 NOS SCC-74-074

600 600 1200 1200 1800 1800 2000 1000 - 500

4400 4900

10000 10000

-pos

pos pos pos neg neg

150 -125 150 200

gt-435 (gt_960) 435 ( 960) A35 (gt_960)

gt435 (gt960)

2125 125 gt125 L125

3-20

Table 3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids)

Formulation No NOS Mod I NOS Mod II NOS 1C NOS ID

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder -600 600 600 600 TMETN 2000 2000 2000 2000 Aluminum 1800 1800 1800 1800 HMX 2000 2000 -500 Ammonium perchlorate - 500 1000 1500 Ammonium nitrate 3600 3100 4100 4100

10000 10000 IbO00 10000

No 8 Blasting Cap neg neg -

Test

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards -shy pos 40 Cards pos neg

(42 cards) 50 Cards pos pos neg 60 Cards neg 65 Cards pos 70 Cards pos neg neg 75 Cards pos -

80 Cards pos - -

85 Cards - Ipos and I neg - -

90 Cards 2 pos - -

100 Cards pos I pos and I neg - -

112 Cards pos - -

120 Cards pos neg - -

121 Cards 1 pos and 2 neg - -

123 Cards neg - - -

125 Cards neg 150 Cards neg

3-21

three of the basic alternate propellants ANAPAlHTPB ANHMXAlHTBP

and ANHMXAPAlHTPB

Some of the problems associated with making propellants with AN are

(1) Low true density of AN (1725 gcm3 ) which limits solids loading for processable propellants

(2) Large size and hollowness of unground as-received prills

(3) Hygroscopicity of AN and particle agglomeration

(4) Slow burning rates

(5) Low specific impulse

(6) Volumetric changes with crystal phase changes

The following three types of AN were selected for evaluation

(1) Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated

(2) U S Agri-Chemicals industrial with anti-caking agent

(3) Monsanto industrial E-2 phase stabilized

These three were selected because they are generally representative of what is currently available from industry Table 3-7 compares the as-received properties of the three AN types Table 3-8 compares some of the processing characteristics of the three AN types

The Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated has the advantage of having no additives that generally tend to reduce propellant specific impulse However this AN has a soft prill that breaks readily and is very hygroscopic Both the unground and ground materials agglomerate severely even in controlled environments These difficulties in controlling particle-size distribution with this type AN pose real problems in achieving and reproducing maximum specific impulse and burning rate in processable propellants Cost of this type AN is higher than the other two types because it is a specialty product

The U S Agri-Chemicals industrial AN has a 043 to 077 wt coating of anticaking agent on the prills The coating consists of 90 talc and 10 Petro-Ag It keeps the material free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture In addition it makes a harder prill which does not break readily Good control of particle-size distribution is possible with this type of AN Consequently processable propellants are achievable with reproducible burning rates and delivered specific impulse

3-22

Oc Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received PropertiesTable 3-7

Vendor

ltC7

Type

Appearance

Total nitrogen

Approx assay

Moisture (when manufactured)

to Additive

Screen size (US Sieve Series)

Loose bulk density gcm3

3)(lbft

Prill Density gcm3

Approx cost kg (lb)

aphase stabilized

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticakang Agent)

White prills

None

254 (115)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

industrial (Coated with Anticaking Agent)

White free-flowing spheres

(prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

025 wt min

043 to 077 wt $ coating bagent

00 wt max retained on No 6 50 wt $ max through No 6 and on a No 8 940 wt max through No 6 and on No 20 10 wt max through No 20

154

154 (7 0 )d

Monsanto Agricultural Products Co

inoustrial E-2

Pearly white free-flowing

spheres (prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

05 wt min

04 to 06 wt E-2 additive c

10 wt max retained on No 6 100 wt through No 14

09611 (60)

161

a157 (71

b90 tale and 10 petroleum agent eMgo according to US Patent 3030179

taxesdBulk costs - carload quantities typically 54431-kg (60-ton) minimum Does not include freight or

Table 3-8

Property

Handling characteristics to unground

Particle size after tumble drying unground

Grinding characteristics particle size after coarse grinding in Raymond hammer mill with 4000-rpm hammer speed 160-rpm feed speed 032-cm (18-in) screen

Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticaking Agent)

Soft prill breaks easily Very hygroscopic and agglom-

erates severely

104 to 1000 pm

480 pm (avg)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

Industrial (Coated with Anttcaking Agent)

Fairly hard prill does not break readily Remains free

flowing with reasonable pro-tection from moisture

840 to 3360 pm

2200 pm (avg)

140 um (avg)

Monsanto AgraculLural Products Co

Industrial E-2 (Phase-Stabilized)

Very hard and dense prill does not bread readily

Remains free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture

1410 to 3360 pm

2000 pm (avg)

2bO pm (avg)

The Monsanto industrial E-2 phase-stabilized AN has 04-to 06 wt E-2 additive This material is MgO which pbase stabilizes-the ammonium nitrate according to U S Patent 3030179 (assigned to Monsanto Company) Figure 3-4 shows the specific volume of Monsanto E-2 AN and of AN that has not been phase stabilized versus temperature The solid line is for the Monsanto E-2 AN and the dotted line is for the AN that has not been phase stabilized Note that the volumetric changes associated with Phase III have been eliminated in the phase-stabilizedMonsanto E-2 AN Comparing Monsanto E-2 AN with the other types inTable 3-7 and 3-8 the following conclusions can be made

(1) Monsanto E-2 AN has a higher prill density than U S Agri-Chemicals AN (161 gcm3 versus 154 gcm3 )

(2) Because Monsanto E-2 is a very hard anddense prill normal handling and tumble drying does not significantly break prills Particle-size distribution remains in the range of 1410 to 3360 pm with an average size of about 2000 m

(3) Coarse grinds of Monsanto E-2 AN have an average particle size of about 280 pm which is in the size range (200 to 400 pm) for better fit with the other solids

(4) The Monsanto E-2 AN remains free flowing in both the ungroundand ground states with reasonable protection from moisture

(5) Cost of the Monsanto E-2 AN in large bulk quantities is 157 1kg (71 [lb) which is comparable to other AN types which are not phase stabilized

ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant batches have been made with all three of the AN types discussed above In general results were as follows

(1) The propellant made with Monsanto E-2 AN had lower endshyof-mix viscosities and longer casting lives than the proshypellant made with the other two types of AN

(2) Burning rates with the Monsanto E-2 AN were either comparable or slightly faster

Based on these results Monsanto E-2 AN was selected as the preferred AN type for the following reasons

(1) It is easily processed with good particle-size control It remains free flowing in both the unground and ground states with reasonable protection from moisture The prill does not readily break with normal handling or tumble drying

(2) It has typically a 5 higher prill density This lowers propellant volumetric solids loading which improves castability

(3) This AN can be ground to more optimum size distributions for improved solids packing

3-25

065

063 063

1

- BOWDEN

MONSANTO E-2 -

I

PHASE ILr

E

uS 061 IIshy

0 -

CU 059

057

055

-100 -50

Figure 3-4

0 50 100

TEMPERATURE degC

Specific Volume of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature

150 200

3-26

(4) It does not have a talc anticaking coating which appears

to accelerate propellant viscosity buildup

(5) Phase stabilization minimizes volumetric changes with varying

temperature due to phase changes

(6) This AN gives comparable or slightly faster burning rates

(7) It has a comparable price to other AN types in large bulk

quantities

7 ANAPAlHTPB ( 3 Wt HC1 Exhaust)

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished

on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraint of lt 3 wt HCl in the propellant exhaust

This constraint is met by limiting the AP level in the formulation to

( 10 wt

a Burning Rate Studies Initial burning rate studies were

made to evaluate different ballistic modifier types and levels with

the basic 88 wt solids ANAPAlHTPB propellant The selection of

the ballistic modifiers was limited to those that were

(1) Commercially available

(2) Proved successful for use within rubber base propellants

(3) Non-migrating

(4) Reasonably priced

selectedAmmonium dichromate (NH4)2Cr207 at the 2 wt level was

as the primary ballistic modifier for the following reasons

(1) AN is the major oxidizer

(2) AD has been used successfully for years with AN propellants

Other ballistic modifiers were used in conjunction with the AD to enhance

burning rate and attempt to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms

(035 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) Table 3-9 shows the formulations evaluatedand the cured strand burning rates obtained

The propellant formulations were mixed as small (1000 to 1500 g)

batches using a 38-liter (1-gal) vertical Bramley mixer The propellant

was cast into RAM-225 released molds that formed individual propellant

strands and was then cured After cure the propellant strands were tested

in a conventional Crawford Bomb strand burner A subsequent study

discussed in the section on ANUNXAPAlHTPB propellant showed that

3-27

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Formulation wt Crawford Bomb Data

rb cms (ins)

Batch No

Total Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m)

Other Ballistic Modifier

Oxidizer Blend CoarseFine

At 345 Nem2

and 210C (500 psia and 700F)

At 690 Ncm2

and 210C (1000 psia and 700 F)

o

30

31 55

88 6o

59 57

10 15 2

2 2

Fe20Q

Fe203 Fe203

1

2 4

4555

442558 425575

0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0279 (0110)

0538 (0212)

0475 (0187)

0432 (0170)

32

33

49

34

60

59

57

59

2

2

2

2

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite Fe203

1

2

4

1 1

4555

442558

425575

442558

0462 (0182)

0564 (0222)

0472 (0186)

0493 (0194)

0627 (0247)

0759 (0299)

0671 (0264)

0737 (0290)estimated

50 57 2 Copper Chromite Fe203

2 2 425575 0511 (0201) 0699 (0275)

54 57 2 Copper Chromite FeF 3 (unground)

2 2 425575 0485 (0191) 0648 (0255)

35 6o 2 Milor Blue 1 4555 0399 (0157) 0625 (0246)

56 57 2 Milori Blue 4 425575 0371 (0146) 0528 (0208)

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

a Crawford Bomb Data

Formulation wt rb cms (ins)

At 3115 Ncm2 At 690 Ncm2

0 0and 21 C and 21 C

Batch Total Other Ballistic Oxidizer Blend (500 psia (1000 psia 0

No Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m) Modifier CoarseFine and 70 F) and 700 F)

W 36 88 60 10 15 2 Ferrocene 1 4555 0381 (0150) 0569 (0224)N)

42 60 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 1 4555 0429 (0169) 0594 (0234)

53 57 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 4 425575 0356 (0140) 0490 (0193)

41 60 2 Iron phthshyalocyanine 1$ 4555 0358 (0141) 0490 (0193)

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

the strand burning rates may have been biased to give faster rates by the RAM-225 release agent However the burning rate trends and ranking of the ballistic modifiers do not appear to be biased by the RAM-225

Figure 3-5 shows strand burning rates plotted at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) versus the second ballistic modifier level for the ballistic modifier systems evaluated General conclusions from the study were as follows

(1) The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) and 2 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) gave the fastest burn rate

(2) Increasing the combined level of burning rate modifiers to greater than 4wt of theformulatibn decreased the burn rate

Although the attritor-ground (I m) ferric fluoride (FeF 3) gave a faster burning rate than CU-0202 P at the 1 wt second ballistic modifier level FeF 3 was not selected because it would have contributed HF in the propellant exhaust A preliminary selection of the ballistic modifier system was made for subsequent work The system selected was 2 wt $ ground AD and 2 wt as-received CU-0202 P

Achievement of the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2

(035 ins at 1000 psia) had not been accomplished by simple manipulation of the ballistic modifier type and level Consequently propellant developshyment effort was continued toward this goal along the following approaches

(1) Finer particle size ballisticmodifiers

(2) Finer particle size AN

(3) Greater level of fine AN

(4) Finer particle size AP

(5) Use of potassium perchlorate

Two approaches were evaluated to reduce ballistic modifier particle sizes to sizes smaller than those achievable with a hammer mill They were dry ball milling and attritor grinding The dry ball milling approach was unsuccessful with AD and CU-0202 P because they packed into a hard cake Attritor grinding of AP and FeF 3 to particle sizes smaller than 1 m has been successfully demonstrated within the solid propellant industry This method uses an attritor mill to grind material suspended in Freon between zircoa beads Attritor grinds were successfully made with AD and CU-0202 P and the particle-size reductions accomplished are summarized in Table 3-10

3-30

1016 I1

STRAND BURN RATES POSSIBLY BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

040

EU

04 E

z 0762

FIRST BALLISTIC MODIFIER 200 wt GROUND AD

FeF3 GROUND TO I

030

K c

0 10

uIX FeF 3 (UNGROUND)

Z

0 58

IRONO PHTHALOCYANINE

MILORI BLUE

x FERROCENEFe 20 3

020 zS

ln

0254 I I 0 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SECOND BALLISTIC MODIFIER LEVEL wt

Figure 3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic

Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-31

Table 3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P

Screen Analysis Micromerograph Material 50 wt pt 50 wt pt

Particle Size pm Particle Size pm

AD

As received =575

Attritor ground (21 h) - 44

CU-0202 P

As received 21

Attritor ground (21 h) shy 17

Small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of the smaller ballistic modifier particle sizes on strand burning rates Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-11 General conclusions from this study are as follows

(1) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 1 wt FeF 3 fine ground AN and 9-gm AP reducing the FeF 3 particle size from a coarse as-received to attritor-ground 1 pm material increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2

(1000 psia) from 0594 to 0668 cms (0234 to 0263 ins) (-12)

(2) In an IDP-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P coarse ground AN and 63- AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm did not significantly change strand burning rate

(3) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (0208 to 0219 ins) ( 5)

(4) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (2208 to 0218 ins) (5)

3-32

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-l05 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized 40 IDP

plasticized

1200

-

1200

-

-

1200

-

1200

1200

-

1200

-

1200

-

Aluminum MD 105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground

72 pm Attritor ground

44 gm

200

-

200

-

200 -

200bull

200

-

200

-

-

200

Ferric fluoride As received Attritor ground 1 pm

100 -

-100

- -

- -

-

-

Copper chromite As received 21 pm

Attritor ground 17 pm

- 200

-

200

-

200

-

-

200

200

-

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine Ground Gulf

Oil Fine ground

Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

3150 -

2850

-

3150 -

2850

-

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 1000 9 [Lm

FEM ground 63 pm -

1000

-

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000 1000

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-33

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-105 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 690 Ncm 2 0429 0465 0422 0419 0424 0439 0437 (100 psia) (0169)(0183)(0166) (0165) (0167) (0173) (0172)

At 345 Ncm 2 0594 0668 0467 0475 0528 0556 0554 (500 psia) (0234)(0263)(0184) (0187) (0208) (0219) (0218)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 047 053 014 018 030 033 033

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

In summary reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burning rates for the selected ballistic modifier system

As discussed earlier particle-size control of the unground Gulf Oil AN was a problem because of breakage of the prills during drying and handling A partial approach to this problem was to screen the unground Gulf Oil AN into a selected size range after drying and handling Smallshyscale propellant batches (1000 to 1500 g) were made using Gulf Oil AN and strand burn rate tests were performed on these batches to evaluate

(1) The effect of screened +60 to -32 mesh (250 to 570 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(2) The effect of screened +32 to -16mesh (570 to 1190 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(3) The effect of varying the fraction of AN as fine ground on castability and burn rate

The fine ground AN was ground using a hammer mill with the following settings

9600 rpm hammer speed 80 rpm feed speed

0033-cm (0013-in) screen

3-34

Fisher sub-sieve average particle size for this material was typically 20 pm The fraction of AN as fine ground was limited to less than 55wt to keep propellant processable in the small scale batches (Larger batches typically have better castability) Table 3-12 and Fig 3-6 summarize test results General conclusions from these results were

(1) All batches had poor relative castability

(2) Using unscreened unground Gulf Oil AN (broad particle-size distribution with a significant portion of fines) and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 483 to 542 wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) from 0505 to 0577 cms (0199 to 0227 ins)

(3) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0462 cms (0199 to 0182 ins)

(4) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 300 to 483

wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (100 psia) from 0419 to Q462cms (0165 to 0182 ins)

(5) Changing the coarse fraction from screened +60 to -32 AN to screened +32 to -16 mesh AN reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0404 cms (0165 to 0159 in s)

Changing the type of ammonium nitrate type from Gulf Oil to Monsanto phase stabilized AN eliminated the problem of prill breakage but did not improve castability even with IDP plasticizer as shown by Batch SB-101 in Table 3-12 The slower burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponent with Batch SB-101 compared to Batch SB-64 is due to use of IDP as the plasticizer A small-scale propellant batch SB-102 was made with a coarse ground Monsanto AN to evaluate the effect of this material on castability and burn rate The coarse ground was made using a hammer mill with the following setting 4000 rpm hammer speed 160 rpm feed speed and 032-cm (18-in) screen

Screen analysis indicated this coarse ground AN had an average particle size of approximately 280 pm Propellant castability using this material was excellent but strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was reduced from 0485 to 0442 cms (0191 to 0174 ins) 9 The burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) was not achieved by varying AN type AN particle size or fraction of AN fine ground

The effect of replacing hammer mill ground AP by fluid energy mill ground AP on propellant burning rate was evaluated in a series of five small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) batches Three batches were made using DOA plasticizer and fine ground Gulf AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 55 pm Two batches were made using IDP plasticizer and coarse ground Monsanto AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm Results of this study are shown in Table 3-13 and Fig 3-7

3-35

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized40 IDP

plasticized

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 to 72 gm

Copper chromite as received

im21

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Screened (+60-32) Gulf Oil

Screened (+32 to -16 mesh) Gulf Oil

Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil

Fine ground Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground9 gm

Fraction of AN fine ground (wt )

Relative Castability

SB-64

AN-25

1200

-

200

200

1500

3050

-

-

2850

-

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-75

AN-63

1200

-

200

200

1500

2700

-

--

3200

-

1000

542

Poor

SB-48

AN-40

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

4130

--

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-48A

AN-40A

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

-

4130 -

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-61

AN-53

1200

200

200

1500

-

3050

-

2850

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-101 SB-102

AN-65 AN-65A

- -

1200 1200

200 200

200 200

1500 1500

- -

- -

- -3050 3050

- -

2850 -

2850

1000 1000

483 -

Poor Excellent

3-36

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-64 SB-75 SB-48 SB-48A SB-61 SB-101 SB-102

Formulation No AN-25 AN-63 AN-40 AN-40A AN-53 AN-65 AN-65A

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm 2 0366 0414 0277 0284 0338 0419 0351 (500 psia) (0144)(0163)(0109) (0112) (0133) (0165) (0138)

At 690 Ncm2 0505 0577 0419 0404 0462 0485 0442 (1000 psia) (0199)(0227)(0165) (0159) (0182) (0191) (0174)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 047 049 060() 050 045 022 032

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

These results indicated the following

(1) Using DOA plasticizer fine ground Gulf AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 55 gm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0508 to 0635 cms (0200 to 0250 ins)

(2) Using IDP plasticizer coarse ground Monsanto AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0442 to 0467 cms (0174 to 0184 ins)

(3) Use of the finer (55 to 63 pm) fluid energy ground AP did not increase pressure exponent

Maximum burning rate achieved using fluid energy ground AP was 0635 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0250 ins at 1000 psia) compared to the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

3-37

Table 3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-62 SB-64 SB-66 SB-102 SB-103

Formulation No AN-25 AN-25 AN-56 AN-65A- AN-65B

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 wt DOA plasticized 40 wt IDP plasticized

1200 -

1200 -

1200 -

-

1200 1200

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as

received 21 [m 200 200 200 200 200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 -1500

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil Coarse ground Monsanto

3050

-2850 -

3050

-2850

-

3050

-2850

-

3050 -

2850

3050 -

2850

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 9 1m Fluid energy ground 55 pm Fluid energy ground 63 pm

1000 --

1000 -

-

1000 -

1000 -

-

-

1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Ratesa

cms at 251C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)- 0368 (0145)

0366 (0144)

0457 (0180)

0351 (0138)

0422 (o166)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0508 (0200)

0505 (0199)

064 (025)

0442 (0174)

0467 (0184)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 049 049 048 032 014

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-38

0762 I I I 1 030 11nSTRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY -Z o BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

0E E

COARSE FRACTION HADBROAD SIZE DISTRIBUTION a Z o

WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTION OFFINES

oC 10I0 Ishy

lt 0508 020 w

zz Z 0-COARSE FRACTION WAS 04 n SCREENED TO OBTAIN

NARROW COARSE DISTRIBUTION (+60 -32

o Z

I-MESH) WITH NO FINES

-shy

0254 20

I 30

I 40

I 50

I 60

010 70

FRACTION QF FINE GROUND AN wt

Figure 3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (Gulf AN)

3-39

1270 050

E

U

o 0

I-

C

BURN RATE GOAL o

I-

D Co0

0762 FINE

DOA

GROUND AN AND

PLASTICIZER

030

0D 0o z

V) 0508-

COARSE GROUND AN AND IDP PLASTICIZER 020

0381 I I I I I 015 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) jm

Figure 3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size

ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-40

A small-scale propellant batch SB-65 was made to determine whether the burning rate could be increased significantly by replacing the ground AP by ground potassium perchlorate (KP) Strand burn rate tests were made on this batch and compared to the reference Batch SB-64 as shown in Table 3-14 Strand burning rate at690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was increased from 0505 to 0531 cms (0199 to 0209 ins) 5 but pressure exponent increased from 047 to 065 This approach was dropped because of the minimal increase in burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and the significant increase in pressure exponent

b Combustion Problems One of the problems in using ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer in solid propellants is the incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered specific impulse This problem was studied in the Phase 0 effort and partially resolved by modifying the formulations to include 10 wt AP Other approaches considered on this program to improve aluminum combustion and performance were

(1) Use of aluminum and zirconium mixtures Zirconium has

lower ignition temperature than aluminum

(2) Use of dichromate-coated aluminum powder

(3) Use of aluminummagnesium alloys

(4) Use of plasticizers containing more oxidizer to obtain a more favorable oxidizerfuel ratio

Some increases in propellant burning were also considered possible with several of these approaches Because of limited time and fundsonly the first two approaches were evaluated to any extent with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant Results of these studies are covered in the following discussion

A small-scale propellant batch SB-104 was made using the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum to evaluate the effect on strand burning rates Results of these strand burning rate tests are compared to strand burning rates of reference Batch SB-103 in Table 3-15 The replacement of the uncoated MD-05 aluminum by the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0467 to 0424 cms (0184 to 0167 ins) 9 No motors were loaded and tested to evaluate the effects of this dichromate-coated aluminum on delivered specific impulse

3-41

Table 3-14 Evaluation of Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-64 SB-65

Formulation No AN-25 AN-55

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 gim 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 [Lm 1000 -

Potassium perchlorate hammer mill ground 30 gm - 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0366 (0144) 0340 (013

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0505 (0199) 0531 (0209

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 049 065

Six small-scale propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of AlZr mixtures on propellant castability and strand burning rates Three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt Fe203 The other three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P Zirconium powder level was varied at 0 250 and 500 wt of propellant formulation (0 16 and 13 replacement of Al) Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-16 and Fig 3-8 General conclusions were as follows

3-42

Table 3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-103 SB-104

Formulation No AN-65B AN-65C

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 (uncoated) 1500 -

Aluminum H-5 (dichromate coated) - 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250C

(ins at 771F)

At 345 Ncm 2 (500 psia) 0422 (0166) 0366 (0144)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0467 (0184) 0424 (0167)

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 014 022

3-43

1016 1 1 1 1 040

-rl STRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY E BIASED BY RAM-225 (3 MOLD RELEASE

E

0762 030 0

CD 00 0 0 I---shy

100 CU-0202 P + 200 AD

z 0508 - 020 D

z z

- 100 Fe20 3 + 200 AD

0254 I I I -010 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ZIRCONIUM (REPLACING ALUMINUM) wt

Figure 3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium

ANAPA1HTPB Propellants

3-44

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Ingredients wt

iHTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1250 1000 1500 1250 1000

Zirconium powder --- 250 500 250 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 [m 200 200 200 200 200 200

Fe203 as received 100 100 100

Copper chromite as received --- - --- 100 100 100

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 gm 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)e

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0272 (0107)

0462 (0182)

0376 (0148)

0307 (0121)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0538 (0212)

0452 (0178)

0399 (0157)

0627 (0247)

0546 (0215)

0455 (0179)

3-45

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 390 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 052 058 058 044 054 057

apoor relative castability bUncastable

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

(1) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to make the propellant less castable on the 38-liter (1-gal) batch scale

(2) The 200 wt AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P ballistic modifier system gave faster burning rates than the 200 wt AD and 100 wt Fe203 ballistic modifier system

(3) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to reduce propellant strand burning rate and increase strand pressure exponent

Based on this study and the study of ballistic modifiers a formulation using 500 wt zirconium was selected for s6ale-up and evaluation in BATES motor firings Results of these additional tests are discussed in Section III-H-d and III-H-e

c Proc6ssing Studies Limited funds and time did not allow for any systematic study of processing variables to optimize processing conditions However processing methods and conditions were optimizedbased on experience Some of the specific approaches used for propellant mixing were

(1) Careful selections of order and manner of ingredient addition to disperse and wet solids

(2) Elevated temperatures prior to curative addition to wet and disperse solids and reduced temperatures after curative addition to minimize cure reactions

3-46

(3) Extended vacuum mix times prior to curative addition to

wet and disperse fine- solids

(4) Controlled moisture of ingredients and of the process

The effects of AN particle sizes and fraction of AN fine ground on propellant castability were discussed in conjunction with the burning rate studies

Antioxidants are commonly used with the R-45 HTPB binder to improve propellant pot life and aging stability The combination of UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-p-phenylene diamine) and DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone) appears to give synergistic effects and is very effective in extending pot life Protech 2002 (UTC proprietary metalshydeactivating antioxidant) and others of the Protech series have the additional advantage of being metal scavengers They tie up the transishytion metals that catalyze radical oxidations Four small-scale propellant batches were made initially to evaluate these pot-life extenders Table 3-17 summarizes results of this initial study The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH gave some improvement in propellant castability with no significant effect on propellant burning rate No improvement in propellant castability was observed with use of the Protech 2002 The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH was selected as the pot-life extender system to be used for additional evaluation

DOA was chosen initially as the plasticizer for use with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant It is one of the most commonly used plasticizers and its low cost is an advantage IDP has a lower viscosity and freezing point than DOA but is more costly than DOA Six smallshyscale propellant batches were made and tested to compare the two plasticizers DOA and IDP under the following three conditions

(1) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level without pot-life extenders

(2) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

(3) At the 50 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

Results of the study are summarized in Table 3-18 General conclusions from the study were

(1) The IDP consistently gave better castability than the DOA

(2) Use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH improved castability with both of the plasticizers DOA and IDP

(3) No major improvement in castability was observed by increasing the plasticizer in binder level from 40 to 50 wt

3-47

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1192 1177 1185

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl-hydroquinone) - 00 004 -

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshyphenylene diamine) -

Protech 2002 (UTC

proprietary antioxidant) -

004

-

004

015

-

015

Aluminum MD-105 1000 1000 1000 1000

Zirconium powder 500 500 500 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63ttxz 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm 1000 1000 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-48

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at

0770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 0323 0295 0282 0269 (500 psia) (0127) (0116) (0111) (0106)

At 690 Ncm 2 0475 0467 0483 0460 (1000 psia) (0187) (0184) (0190) (0181)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 057 066 078 078

aUncastable bpoor castability

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

The effect of plasticizer type on propellant burning rate was not conshyclusively determined from this study Two out of the three cases indicated that the IDP gave slower strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) To resolve this question two additional propellant batches SB-100 and SB-101 were made where the strand burn rate test results could not possibly be biased by the RAM-225 release agent The batches were formulated to have 40 wt plasticizer in binder and to use the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH Results of tests on these two batches are shown in Table 3-19 These results indicated the change from DOA to IDP plasticizer reduced the strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0544 to 0485 cms (0214 to 0191 ins) ( 11)

Based on results of these processing studies the following propellant selections were made for additional evaluation in scale-up batches and motor tests

(1) DOA plasticizer

(2) 40 wt plasticizer in binder level

(3) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH each at the 004 wt level

3-49

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

Formulation No AN-57a AN-58b AN-25 0 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 592 592 720 720 712 712

DTBH (25 dishytertiary butyl hydroquinone) 004 004 - - 004 004

UOP-36 (N-phenylshyN-cyclohexylshyP-phenylene diamine) 004 004 - - 004 004

DOA 600 - 480 - 480 -

IDP - 600 - 480- - 480

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 Am 200 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 [Lm 200 200 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate screened ungroundGulf Oil +60 -32 mesh 2700 2700 - - - -

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil - - 3050 3050 2700 2700

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 3200 3200 2850 2850 3200 3200

Ammonium perchloshyrate hammer mill ground 9 jim - - 1000 1000 1000 1000

3-50

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ammonium perabloshyrate fluid energy mill ground 55 pm

Total

Strand Burning Ratesd cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2 (500 to 1000 psia)

aGood castability

SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

AN-57a AN-58b AN-250 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

1000 1000 -

10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

0376 0371 0366 0478 0414 0353 (0148) (0146) (0144) (0188) (0163) (0139)

0572 0533 0505 0658 0577 0500 (0225) (0210) (0199) (0259) (0227) (0197)

059 053 047 046 049 048

bExcellent castability 0Poor castability dpossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-51

Table 3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-100

-AN-25a

SB-101

AN-65b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 712 712

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshy

P-phenylene diamine)

004

04

004

004

DOA 48o -

IDP - 480

Aluminum IAD-I05 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 72 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm

Total 1000

10000 1000

10000

Strand burning rates cms at 25degC (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

0406 (0160)

0544 (0214)

0419 (0165)

0485 (0191)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

041 022

apoor castability bFair castability

3-52

Results of these additional tests are discussed in sections on scale-up and ballistic evaluation

d Scale-up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Two propellant formulations were selected for evaluation in scale-up batches [946 liters 104 to 113 kg (25gal 230 to 250 lb)] and motor tests Formulation AN-25 was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum and 4 wt ballistic modifier Formulation AN-59 was identical except one-third of the aluminum (5 wt of the propellant formulation) was replaced by zirconium powder Details of the formulations are shownin Table 3-20 Both formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section e The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples from each batch

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rate

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-20 General conclusions from these tests were as follows

(1) The end-of-mix viscosities and pot lives on both batches were excellent There was no degradation of castability with zirconium as suggested by the small-scale batch studies

(2) Strand burning rates were slightly faster at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) for the formulation with zirconium The smallshyscale studies had suggested slower burning rates for formulashytions containing zirconium

(3) Both formulations had burning rateswhich were well below the burning rate goal 0478 and 0513 cms at 690 Ncm2

(0188 and 0202 ins at 1000 psia) versus goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(4) Card gap tests on both formulations were negative at 0 cards and therefore met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Density of the propellant containing zirconium was slightly higher than the propellant containing just aluminum as expected

3-53

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

Propellant Type Batch Number Formulation Number Batch Size kg (ib)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized)

UOP-36

DTBH

Ammonium dichromate grodnd 63 pm

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Aluminum powder

Zirconium powder

Ammonium nitrate Gulf Oil unground Gulf Oil fine ground

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 pm

Total

Brookfield apparent viscosities kP at 0C (OF)

Time after curative addition

07 h (end-of-mix) 13 h 34 h

Strand burning rates at 251C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) At 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

ANAPAlHTPB SB-73 AN-25

113 (250)

1192

004

004

200

200

1500

-

3050 2850

1000

10000

60 at 55 (130) 73 at 57 (135) 95 at 55 (130)

0257 (0101) 0373 (0147) 0462 (0182) 0478 (0188)

3-54

ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74 AN-59

104 (230)

1192

004

004

200

200

1000

500

3050 2850

1000

10000

41 at-57 (-135) 50 at-57 (-135)

0224 (0088) 0353 (0139) 0437 (0172) 0513 (0292)

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations (Continuation 1)

Propellant Type ANAPAlHTPB ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74Batch Number SB-73

Formulation Number AN-25 AN-59 Batch Size kg (ib) 113 (250) 104 (230)

Card Gap Tests 10 negative 10 negative at 0 cards at 0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) 16497 16630 gcm3 (lbin 3 ) (00596) (00601)

JANNAF Uniaxial properties Sm Ncm 2 (psi) 90 (130) 88 (127) era 47 48

Sb Ncm2

eb (psi) 90 (130)

47 88 (127)

48

(6) JANNAF uniaxial properties for both batches were comparable

Maximum stress Sm was in the range of 88 to 90 Ncm2

(127 to 130 psi) and strain at maximum stress em was in

the range of 47 to 48 The low strain values are adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

e Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlHTPB System (3 HCl in

Exhaust) The five candidate alternate propellants listed and defined

in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were all scaled up to processing of 113-kg (250-1b)

batches loaded into BATES motors and test fired The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions using nozzles manufactured

and cut to actual expansion ratios of 716 Both chamber pressure and thrust were measured The tests were conducted at ambient temperature

conditions with propellant charges conditioned to 250C (770F) The

measured sea level Isp swas corrected to a vacuum Isp by simply adding the

back-pressure correction The following equations define the pertinent ballistic parameters

PC _f tEWAT Pc Edttb

J t at 075 Pc init

3-55

-- t EWA T F = dt tF=ftat 075 PC initFtt

Ab gPc KN= - = -

At crp

-- f ta C g At PdtWp g PcKN rp

It Isp ms = shywip

fta itr Fdt

to

PaAeIsp vac ms =Isp MS + -

Wp expended

(ta + tb)2

Figure 3-9 shows the burning rate of the formulation number AN-25 the ANAPAlHTPB propellant system with 10 AP Table 3-21 is a tabulashytion of theBATES motor test data from the test firings of batch number SB-74 of formulation AN-25

f Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlZrHTPB BATES motors were also loaded and tested with the modified ANAPAlHTPB formulation

containing 5 Zr powder a 15-pm powder The burning rates determined in BATES motors are shown in Fig 3-10 and the ballistic data from the BATES motors tests are tabulated in Table 3-22

3-56

PRESSURE psic 4

102 8 103 2 4 6 102 4 6 1524 i 1 1 1 6

A BATES MOTOR DATA 1016 4

n 0278

E --U 0508 -

2

KN shy

(D 0254 - 1000 1o0 1

z 0203- 800- 88

z

0152 - 600 6

0102 - -400 4

0051 I 200 2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73

3-57

2540 2032

1524

102

-

2 4

PRESSURE

6 103

I

psa

2 4 6 104 10

BATES MOTOR DATA 6

1016 n 0277 4

0508 2

O

S0254-0229 0152 -

KN

1000 800600600

I0-866

z

a

6102 - 400 4

0051 I I I 1 200 1 2

69

Fig 3-10

138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74

3-58

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test data

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

W loaded kg (lb)

Wp expended kg (lb)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-sem2 (lb-s)

E-1453 E-1455

9-15-75 9-23-75

SB-732 SB-733

3376 3109 (1329) (1224)

3393 3119 (1336) (1228)

25225 2525 p(55611) (5567) 25028 2501

(55177) (5513)

9922 9904

3840 3855 (1512) (15178)

811 742

881 797

425 576 (616) (835)

493 634 (715) (919)

459 590 (666) (856)

38844 45878 (56339) (66541)

3-59

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 PropellantTable 3-21 (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s)

p (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia)

r at PC cms

(ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s

(Ib-s)

F (JF dttb)6 N (lb)

It (f F dt) (ta)

N-s (lbrs)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

In vac ins N-skg M

E-1455E-1453

4723240196 (68504)(58300)

61834790 (8968)(69147)

05180483 (0190) (02o4)

534445332

528544739

1432 1424 (4700) (4673)

948953

5174650665 (11633)(11390)

6973461910 (15677)(13918)

53745852257 (120826)(11748)

212844207165 (21704)(21125)

88828820

228132226534 (2310) (23263)

3-60

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids Aluminum Oxidizer

88 15 AP-1O AN-59 HMX 0

Run No E-1453 E-1455

Expansion ratio 688 700

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test date

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

Wp loaded kg (ib)

Wp expended kg (ib)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

-E-1454 E-1456

9-18-75 9-26-75

SB-741 SB-742

3287 3119 (1294) (1228)

3307 3142 (1302) (1237)

2561 2561 (5647) (5646)2534 2528

(5586) (5574)

9891 9872

3835 38298 (1510) (15078)

3-61

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-IO AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s)

fP dt (ta) N-scm (lb-s)

Pc (f P dttb)

Ncm2 (psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

E-1454 E-1456

769 740

824 784

465 552 (675) (800)

541 620 (785) (899)

540 614 1 (783) (890)

40311 4482C (58467) (6500

41806 46000 (60634) (66718)

5242 6057 (7603) (8785)

0498 0518 (0196) (0204)

478 531

4726 523

13940 14319 (45736) (46977)

928 9527

3-62

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb)N (lb)

it (fF dt) (ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s-)

Isp efficiency

lsi vac ms N-skg(s22055

Expansion ratio

E-1454 E-1456

50189 50576 (11283) (11370)

6526 6835 (1467) (15365)

52044 52044 (11700) (11770)

20319 20447 (2072) (2085)

8598 865

22016

(2249) (2245)

696 694

3-63

8 ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (gt3 Wt HCl in Exhaust)

The propellant development work accomplished on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to this point indicated that the burn rate goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with the constraint of lt3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was probably not achievable Development work was continued on this propellant with the HC1 constraint removed but held to a minimum This section discusses that propellant development effort

a Burning Rate Studies Four small-scale batches (1500 g) were made varying the FEM AP (fluid energy mill-ground ammonium perchlorate) level from 10 to 30 wt The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground AD and 2 wt CU-0202 P was used End-of-mix viscosities pot life and cured strand burning rates were measured on each batch Objective of this work was to determine what FEM AP level was needed

to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) The formulations and test results are shown in Table 3-23and Fig 3-11 These results lead to the following conclusions

(1) The strand burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) is achievable using 18 wt FEM AP A motor burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) may require a slightly higher FEM AP level

(2) End-of-mix viscosities werein the range of 88 to152 kP at 520C (125 0 F) for FEM AP levels ranging from 10 to 20 wt Casting lives for these batches were 2_35 h at

520C (125 0F)

(3) Using FEM AP and increasing the AP level from 10wt to 18-wt increases HCI in the exhaust from 29 to =50

Thermoballistic calculations indicated that reducing the ballistic modifier level to 2 wt by elimination of the AD increased theoretical Isp by 196 N-skg (2 s) Elimination of the AD was desirable from other considerations Studies had shown that it crosslinks the R-45 prepolymer (probably through the double bond) and degrades propellant castability and physical properties Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made varying the FEM AP level over the range of 15 to 25 wt level Only 2 wt as received CU-0202 P was used as ballistic modifier End-of-mix viscosities and-cured strand burning rates were measured

Results of this study are shown in Table 3-24 and Fig 3-11 General conclusions from this work were

(1) Approximately 20 wt FEM AP is required to meet the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosities were in the range of 18 to 19 kP at 520C (1250F)

3-64

1 1 0902286

0802032 - 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 200

AD + 200 CU-0202 P

KZ 1778 690 Ncm2 (1000 psa) -070 E 200CU-0202 P

0 -060 O 1524

lt I- 345 Ncm

2 (500 psa) 200 AD 200CU-0202 P

0501270

z z

040 D2 1016 co

z z

0762- 030n

345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 200 CU-0202 P 0200508 -

I I 0100254 I I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FEM AP LEVEL wt

Fig 3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

3-65

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder 40 DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground (72 im)

Copper chromite as received (21 1im)

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto unground

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto fine grind

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy ground (63 tim)

SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

3050 3050 3050 -3050

2850 2350 1850 850

1000 1500 2000 3000

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier) (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

Formulation No AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

Brookfield Viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) kPh after CA

End-of-mix -152067 112062 88038 2806 LU

Pot life 18417 26418 22414 shy25627 3228 27224 3237 4038 40834

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0424 (0167) 0536 (0211) 0739 (0291) 1461 (0575) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0528 (0208) 0693 (0273) 1067 (0420) 2136 (0841)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 - 038 051 052

CA = curative addition

Table 3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (2 Wt Ballistip Modifier)

Batch No Formulation No

Ingredientswt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate

FEM ground 63 Pm

Brookfield End-of-Mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F)

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-135 AN-69

1200

1500

200

3050

2550

1500

10000

19

0437 (0172)

0660 (0260)

058

SB-136 SB-137 AN-70 AN-71

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

3050 3050

1550 2050

2500 2000

10000 10006

18

0884 (0348) 0615 (0242)

0242 (0489) 0930 (0366)

051 060

3-68

Based on these results formulation AN-71 with 2 wt as received CUshy0202 P and 20 wt FEM AP was selected for additional evaluation with

a scale-up batch and motor tests

b Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation Formulation AN-71 was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch [946 liter (25 gal) 113 kg (250 lb)] and motor tests It was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum 20 wt FEM AP and 2 wt ballistic modifier Details of the formulation are shownin Table 3-25 Formulation AN-71 was successfully mixed in the 946-liter (25-gal) mixer and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section III-H-8-c and d Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests

were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are also summarized in Table 3-25 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The propellant end-of-mix viscosity was 28 kP at 530C (127degF) which is high but acceptable Pot life was about 2 hours

(2) The strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was 0922 cms (0363 ins) which met the goal of 089 cms at

690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(3) Strand pressure exponent was 061 Motor pressure exponents are typically lower than strand pressure exponents The generally high pressure exponent is associated with the low ballistic modifier level (2 wt CU-0202 P) and the

fine (FEM) AP

(4) Card gap tests were negative at 0 cards Therefore they met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) The propellant density and JANNAF uniaxial properties obtained were typical of properties obtainedwith the ANAPAlHTPB propellant Measured density was 16497 gcm3 at 250C (00596 lbin3 at 770 F) Sm was 89 Ncm2 (129 psi) with an em of 37 The low strain values were adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

3-69

Table 3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation

ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Type Batch Number SB-140 Formulation No AN-71

113 kg (250 lb)Batch Size

Formulation wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized) 1192 004UOP-36 004DTBH

Copper Chromite as received 21 Am 200 Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 Ammonium nitrate

Monsanto unground 3050 Monsanto fine ground 2050

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 2000

Total 10000

Brookfield Apparent Viscosities kP at 0C (OF) Time after curative addition

09 h (end-of-mix) 28 at 53 (127) 19 h 52 at 52 (125) 29 h 73 at 52 (125)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins) At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) 0445 (0175) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0612 (0241) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) 0785 (0309) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0922 (0363)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 061 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests Negative at

0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) gcm3 (lbin 3) 16497 (00596)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties Sm Ncm2 (psi) 89 (129) em 37

89 (129)Sb Ncm2 (psi)eb 37

3-70

c Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAIHTPB (gt3 HCI in Exhaust)

As has been discussed the effects on this candidate propellant system

resulting from increasing the AP content were studied A formulation

with 20 AP and burning rate modifier reduced to 2 met the burning The burningrate and Isp goal This formulation is identified as AN-71

rates and measured Isp are shown in Fig 3-12 and Table 3-26 respectively

d Summary One ANAPAlHTPB propellant formulation was

developed that conformed to the program constraints for lt3 wt HCl

in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards

classification This formulation AN-25 had a motor burning rate

-of only 053 cms at 690 Ncm2 (021 ins at 1000 psia) and a

= 716 of only 2285 N-skg (233 s) A maximumdelivered vacuum Ip E

strand burning rate of only 064 cms at 690 Ncm2 (025 ins at

1000 psia) (unbiased by RAM-225 release agent) was achieved within

the program constraints with a small-scale batch using fluid energy

Since the development work indicated thatmillground (55 [m) AP

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1300 psia)

was probably not achievable with the constraint of _3 wt HI in the

propellant exhaust development work was continued with this constraint

removed but held to a minimum Formulation AN-71 was developed to

This formulation used only 200 meet the program goals on that basis

wt copper chromite as ballistic modifier and 2000 wt fluid energy

It had a motor burning rate of 097 cms atmill ground (63 gim) AP 1000 psia) and a delivered vacuum I E = 716690 Ncm2 (038 ins at

of 2403 N-skg (245 s) Table 3-27 summarizes and compares te properties

of these two formulations versus the program goals

The following summarizes the status of the ANAPAlHTPB propellant

development

(1) The basic ANAPA1HTPB propellat ip the second most

promising candidate of the three basic propellants

to good(2) Demonstrated that a few of AP is essential

aluminum combustion

of AP is required to meet(3) Demonstrated that more than 10

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins

at 1000 psia)

(4) Formulation AN-71 with 20 wt AP met the program goals for

burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [097 cms (038 ins)

achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] and delivered

= 716 [2403 N-skg (245 s) achieved versusvacuum Is at E

goal of 21403 N-skg (245 s)] but did not meet the goal

for pressure exponent (048 achieved versus goal of K042)

It conformed to the constraint for a Class 2 propellant

but did not conform to the constraint for lt_3 wt HUl in

the propellant exhaust

3-71

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellent

Solids 88 Alumindm 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX ---

Run No E-1484

Test Date 6-10-76

BatchChg No SB-1401

Nozzle Dt init cm (in) 48636 (19148)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 46380 (1826)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3025 (6670)

Wp expended kg(ib) 3025 (6668)

Wt expended 9997

Web thickness cm (in) 4648 (1830)

tb s 698

ta s 730

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 313 (454)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 380 (551)

Pc final Ncm 2 (psia) 317 (460)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24506 (355435)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24952 (3619)

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 351 (509) (psia)

r at cCms (ins) 0665 (0262)

KN initial 2103

KN average 21987

C ms (fts) 14604 (47914)

C efficiency 972

3-72

-E-1491

6-25-76

SB-1402

48636 (19148)

46355 (1825)

3016 (6650)

3003 (6621)

9956

4630 (1823)

654

705

317 (460)

421 (610)

238 (345)

24525 (355710)

24948 (36184)

3750 (5439)

0709 (0279)

2103

-21998

14638 (48026)

975

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX --shy

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 6248797 (14o4786) 6281131 (1412055)

F (fF dttb) N (lb) 895249 (20126) 960415 (21591)

it (fF dt for ta) 6356996 (142911) 6382382(1434817)

N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 210117 (21426) 215588 (21576)

Isp efficiency 9226 9256

Isp vac ms (corr) 240214 (24495) 241008 (24576)

Expansion ratio 716 726

(5) Formulation AN-25 with 10 wt AP met the program goal for presshysure exponent (028 achieved versus goal of lt042) but did not

meet the goals for burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [053 cms (021 ins) achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] dr for delivered vacuum I eE = 716 [2285 N-skg (233 s) achieved versus goal of gt2403 N-skg (245 s)] It conformed to the constraints for a Class 2 propellant and gt3 wt hCl in the propellant exhaust

(6) Demonstrated good castability and a pot life greater than

34 hours for formulation AN-25

(7) Demonstrated acceptable castability for formulation AN-71

(8) Successfully loaded and test fired 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with both formulations

(9) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

9 ANHMXAIHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished in the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined pershyformance goals within the constraints specified One of the advantages of this basic propellant is that it contains no AP and consequently generates no HCl in the exhaust However typical formulations using

3-73

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104

1524 I 1 1 6

1016 -A BATES MOTOR DATA 4

0 5x 10 MOTOR DATA 0508 - 2

E U

n =048 KN

0254 1-- 000 10 o 0203 800-6L 8

Z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0124 - 400 4 D

0051 200 2

I 10-20025 I1 I I

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm 2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140

3-74

Table 3-27 ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Achieved Properties vs Goals

Achieved Value

SB-140SB-73 AN-71AN-25-Alternate Propellant

Goal (10 wt- AP) (20 wt AP)Property

BATES motor Burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

089 (035) 053 (021) 097 (038)acms (ins)

BATES motor lt042 028pressure exponent

-Delivered vacuum sn

E 716 N-skg (s) 2403 (2245) 2285 (233) 2403 (245)

lt3 30 631C1 in exhaust

Meets card gap yes Required yesrequirement for Class 2 (negative (negative

at 0 cards)at 0 cards)

a45-kg (10-1b) motor test data

7) about to 20 wt HMX have theoretical Isp values

(vacuum and E 15 196 N-skg (2 s) less than comparable ANHNXAP(10)AlHTPB

formulations

Reduction in program funds and scope limited development effort on

this basic propellant to only four exploratory mixes

Two 10-g hand mixes one uncured and one a Safety Tests cured were made of formulations with 20 wt Class

A HMX to initially -Impact

check material compatibility and propellant safety properties

tests (DSC-differential scanning calorimeter) were made on both mixes

The formulations and results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-28

For comparison purposes these same safety tests were made on propellant

samples of the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-B-1123) Table 3-29

compares the safety properties of the candidate ANHMXAlHTPB formulation

AN-52 with the safety properties of PBAN baseline formulation TP-H-1123

These tests indicated

3-75

Table 3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No

Formulation No

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45 Alrosperse Premix DOA (4o)

Aluminum Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm Copper chromite as received Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 pm HMX Type II Class A

(DOA coated) Ammonium nitrate ground Ammonium nitrate unground

(+60 -32 mesh screened fraction) IPDI

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight 0 fire 50 fire

Electrostatic Sensitivity J

Thermal Stability (DSC - 10OCmin heating rate)

SB-59 SB-60

AN-51 (uncured) AN-52

1108 1108

1500 1500 200 200 200 200 7

2020 2020 3410 3410

1500 1500 none shy 062 9938 10000

4318 (17 )a 4572 (18) 4826 (19 )a 508 (20)

gt128 gt128

No exotherm No exotherm over tempera- over temperashyture range 21 ture range 21 to 1490c (70 to 1490c (70

to 3000 F) to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

3-76

Table 3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAiHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-52)

Formulation TP-H-1123 (PBAN Baseline)

Batch No SB-77

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400

HTPB binder

Aluminum 1600

Ballistic modifiers 040

Ammonium perchlorate 6960

Ammonium nitrate

HMX Type II Class A

Impact sensitivity cm (in) for 18 kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4318 (18) 50 fire 4953 (195)

Electrostatic sensitivity J gt128

Thermal stability (DSC - 100 Cmin heating rate) No exotherm

over temperature range 21 to -1490c (70tto 3000F)

DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

AN-52

SB-60

1190

1500

400

4910

2000

4572 (18) 508 (20)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000F)

3-77

(1) Formulation AN-52 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123)

(2) DSC data suggested that thermal stability of the 20 wt HMX propellant and gross material compatibility over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 300 0F) were adequate

(3) Formulations with up to 20 wt HMX could be safely processed inthe JPL ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

b Burning Rate Studies Two small-scale batches (1000 g) were made varying the level of Class A HMX from 1500 to 2000 wt Strand burn rate tests were made on cured propellant from both batches The formulations and results of strand burn rate tests are shown in Table 3-30 Strand burning rates increased from 0414 to 0450 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0163 to 0177 ins at 1000 psia) with the 1500 to 2000 wt increase in Class A HMX while the strand pressure exponent remained constant at 042 Although the strand pressure exponent met the performance goal of lt042 the burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)were well below the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) These very slow burn rates suggest that the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant may not be a viable candidate for achieving program goals

c Hazard Classification Card gap samples were cast cured and tested from the two batches shownin Table 3-30 Results of the card gap tests indicated positive tests at 35 and 70 cards on both batches Therefore these formulations with 15 and 20 wt Class A HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant hazard classification one of the major constraints Propellant development work on the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant was terminated at this point

d Summary The following summarizes the status of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant development

(1) Demonstrated that 1500 and 2000 wt_ Class A HMX resulted in Class 7 propellants

(2) Achieved a strand burning rate of 0450 cms (0177 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and a strand pressure exponent of 042 with a formulation containing 2000 wt Class A HMX

(3) Demonstrated good castability of the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant

(4) Discontinued development of this basic propellant as a result of reduction in funds

3-78

Table 3-30 ANHM4XHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-82A (HMX)

ANH-1

SB-81

ANH-1

(HMX)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class A 1500 2000

Ammonium nitrate 5400 4900

Card gap tests

0 cards 35 cards 70 cards

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

1 positive 2 positive

0-310 (0122) 0414 (0163)

042

1 positive 2 positive

0340 (0134) 0450 (0177)

042

3-79

10 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work-accompshylished on the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraints specified The constraint of lt_3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was accomplished by limiting the AP level in the formulation to10 wt The constraint of a Class 2 propellant hazard classification was primarily accomplished by limiting the HMX Class (particle size) and level to meet the card gap requireshyments for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards)

a Safety Tests Safety tests were performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes containing 20 wt Class A HMX to check material compatishybility and safety properties The formulations and the test results are shown in Table 3-31 As in the case of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant these safety tests results were compared to similar safety test results on the PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123) Table 3-32 shows this comparison General conclusions were

(1) Formulation AN-50 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as TP-H-1123

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F) as determined by the DSC

(3) Formulations with-up to 20 wt HMX could besafely proshycessed in the JPL-ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

Safety tests were also performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes to check material capability and propellant safety properties when the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were incorporated into ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellants Selected level for both UOP-36 and DTBH was 004 wt Impact sensitivity electrostatic sensitivity and thermal stability (DSC) tests were made on samples from the mix with the pot-life extendshyers SB-127 and on samples from a control mix without the pot-life extenders SB-126 The formulations and test results were shown in Table 3-33 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The mix with the pot-life extenders had essentially the same impact sensitivity and electrostatic sensitivity as the control mix

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000 F) (DSC)

b Burning Rate Studies Six small-scale batches were made varying HMX particle size at two sizes Class A ( 149 lm) and Class E (15 to 20 gim) and HMX level at three levels 10 15 and 20 wt Objective of this study was to determine the effects of HMX particle

3-80

Table 3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No SB-57 (uncured)

Formulation No AN-49

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45

Alrosperse Premix 1108

DOA (40)

Aluminum 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm 200

Copper chromite as received 200

Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 Jm 1000

HMX Type II Class A (1 DOA coated) 2020

Ammonium nitrate ground 3910

IPDI none

9938

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for

18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 Fire 381 (15)a

50 Fire 43-18 (17 )a

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over (DSC at 10degCmin heating temperature range rate) 21 to 1490C

(70 to 3000 F)

SB-58

AN-50

1108

1500

200

200

1000

2020

3910

062

10000

5334 (21)

5715 (225)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples

3-81

Table 3-32 -Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate--ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-50)

Formulation TP-H-1123 AN-50

(PANbaseline)

Batch Number SB-77 SB-58

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400 ---

HTPB binder --- 1190

Aluminum 1600 1500

Ballistic modifiers 040 400

Ammonium perchlorate 6960 1000

Ammonium nitrate --- 3910

HMX Type II Class A --- 2000

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4572 (18) 5334 (21)

50 fire 4953 (195) 5715 (225)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability (DSC at 100Cmin heating No exotherm over No exotherm-over rate) temperature rangeru temperature range

21 to 1490C 21 to 149 0 Cshy(70 to 3000 F) (70 to 3000 F)

size and level on propellant hazard classification (card gap tests) strand burningrates and relative castability Tests were performed on- samples from each of these batches and the results are summarized in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 alongwith-the formulations Results of the card gap tests and relative castability are discussed in the hazards classification and processing sections respectively The strand burn- ing rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) were plotted versus HMX level in Fig 3-13 forthe two different HMXparticle sizes Class A and Class E Although the strand burning rates are biased to faster values by the

3-82

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests

Formulations for 10-g Hand Mixes

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate attritor ground (44 pm)

Copper chromite attritor

ground (17 Pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (63 gm)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-Nshycyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine)

DTBH (ditertiary butyl hydroquinone)

Safety Tests (Cured Propellant)

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight)

0 Fire

50 Fire

SB-126 SB-127

ANH-16A (Control) ANH-30

1200 1192

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1300 1300

100 1000

004

0-04

10000 10000

43 (17) 57 (19)

52 (205) 51 (20)

3-83

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests (Continuation 1)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over No exotherm over

(DSC at 10degCmin heating rate)

temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000F)

temperature range 21 to 149 0C (70 to 3000F)

RAM-225 release agent the relative ranking and trends are believed to be valid General conclusions from these rankings and trends are as follows

(1) The fine particle size HMX Class E (15-20 pm) gave signifishycantly faster burning rates than the coarse Class A (=149 pm) HMX

(2) The fine particle size HMX Class E gave lower pressure exponent than the coarse Class E HMX

(3) Strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) increased significantly with HMX level to about 15 wt and tended to level in the 15 to 20 wt range

From burning rate considerations the fine size Class E HMX was preferred because it gave faster burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponents Formulation ANH-5A [Batch SB-85A(HMX)] was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed in Sections III-H-10-f and III-H-10-g on Scale-up and Ballistic Evaluation

Cured propellant strands to this point in the program had been prepared by casting the uncured propellant into molds which formed individual strands and which had been coated with RAM-225 release agent Test data from the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings(from Batch SB-89 (first scale-up batch) revealed a large discrepancy between strand burn rates and the 45-kg (10-1b) motor burn rates An investigation of this discrepshyancy revealed that the RAM-225 was the cause Strands were prepared in5 the following three ways and tested for comparison

(1) Strands cured in the RAM-225 release molds and restricted

(2) Strands cut from a solid block of cured propellant and restricted

(3) Strands cut from a block of cured propellant then given light spray coat of RAM-225 dried in 710 C (1600F) oven then restricted

3-84

Table 3-34 ANH-MXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class A

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchlorate

ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates2

at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500to 1000 psia)

SB-88

ANH-8

1200

1500

200

200

1000

4900

1000

2 negative

1 negative

0480(0189)a

6 65 (0 2 62 )a0

048

SB-83 SB-84

ANH-3 NH-4

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1500 2000

4400 3900

1000 1000

-

1 positive 1 positive

2 positive 2 positive

0 622 (0 245 )a 05 41(02 13 )a

0826 (0 32 5)a 0 7 47 (02 94 )a

041 047

3-85

Table 3-34 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) (Continuation 1)

Shore A Hardness (3 s) 81 80 82

Relative Castability Good Good Good

aStrands were cast into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

Results of the tests are summarized in Table 3-36 and Fig 3-14 Very good agreement was obtained between the burn rate of strands cured in the RAM-225 release mold and strands cut from a cured block of propelshy

lant and then sprayed with RAM-225 However both these sets of burn

rates were erroneously fast compared to the 5 x 10 motor burn rates In contrast the strand burn rates obtained from cut strands which were

not treated with RAM-225 were much slower and agreed fairly well with motor data

A brief investigation was made to determine the composition of RAM-225 and whether it could be used as an improved ballistic modifier in the propellant formulation Chemical analysis of RAM-225 indicated

that it is a high molecular weight silicone oil in the solvents isopropashynol and heptane Two 38-liter (1-gal) batches of propellant were made with 015 wt dimethyl silicone (1000 cS) One batch had 400 wt mixed ballistic modifiers (ammonium dichromate and copper chromite) and

the other batch had 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier Both batches made with the 015 wt dimethyl silicone showed signs of viscosity buildup even before curative addition The batch with the 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier became too viscous to process to completion Tests results on the successfully completed batch with 015 wt dimethshyyl silicon [Batch SB-107 (HMX)] are shown in Table 3-37 Test results from Batch SB-108 (HMX) are also included in this table for comparative purposes General conclusions from these tests are as follows

(1) No significant changes in strand burning rates were observed due to addition of 015 wt dimethyl silicone

(2) The dimethyl silicone caused rapid propellant viscosity buildup even before curative addition and therefore the material appears impractical from propellant processing considerations

A series of six small-scale (1000 g) batches was made with the specific objectives of increasing propellant burn rate improving castashybility and improving burn rate reproducibility US Agri-Chemicals (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent was used for all six batches The following variables were evaluated

3-86

0

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations --HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchloshyrate ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

32 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770 F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-87 SB-85A SB-86

ANH-7 ANH-5A ANH-6

1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500

200 200 200

200 200 200

1000 1500 2000

4900 4400 3900

1000 1000 1000

2 neg -

1 neg

I neg 2 neg 1 pos

1 pos

(500 psia) 0 767 (0 302 )a 0 930 (0 366 )a 0912(0359)a

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0970(0382)a 1105 (0 43 5 )a 1 128 (0444 )a

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2

(500to 1000 psia) 033 024 031

3-87

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation

(Class E HMX) (Continuation 1)

89 88Shore A Hardness (3 s) 90

Relative Castability Fair Fair Marginal

aStrands were east into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

(1) Ammonium nitrate particle size Replacement of part or all of the large unground prills by a coarse-ground ammor nitrate

(2) Plasticizer type Replacement of DOA (dioctyl adipate) by IDP (isodecyl pelargonate)

Relative castability and strand burn rates were measured on each batch Results of this study are summarized in Tables 3-38 and 3-39 and Fig 3-15 General conclusions regarding propellant burn rates from the study were as follows

(1) Replacement of the very large unground ammonium nitrate prills by coarsely ground ammonium nitrate reduced propelshy

lant burning rate

(2) Replacement of DOA by IDP slightly reduced propellant burnshying rate (Q2)

(3) Strand pressure exponents were typically 036 or less well within the goal of lt042

(4) The US Agri-Chemical (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent handled without caking and had less tendshyency to size reduce during handling tand mixing These

factors should improve propellant burn rate reproducibility

The reduction in burn rate by replacement of unground prills with coarseshyly ground AN was unexpected and inconsistent with usual solid propellant experience Usually propellant burn rate increases with increasing fractions of ground oxidizer The mechanism for this unusual response has not been identified to date Formulation ANH-12 Batch SB-94 (HMX)

had the fastest burn rate 0836 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0329 ins at 1000 psia) consistent with acceptable castability Therefore it was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of replacing bamer mill ground AP with the finer fluid energy mill (FEM) ground AP on propellant properties Micromerograph analysis

3-88

270I 050-K STRAND BURN RATES BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

CLASSE HMXZ 1016 040 0 0ashy10

7CLASS AHMX 0762 - 030 Z

z nD 2

z - -

Ce 0508 -020 1 F-I) 0 5 10 15 20

HMX wt

Fig 3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-89

Table 3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)

Strand Burning Rate cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

Strands cured Strands cut 5 x 10 motor Strands cut in RAM-225 from cured firings from cured

Pressure released mold block of block of Ncm 2 (psia) propellant propellant

sprayed with RAMshy225 dried and tested

690 (1000) 0991 (0390) 0721 (0284) 0660 (0260) 0983 (0387)

517 (750) 0876 (0345) - 0662 (0245)

345 (500) 0765 (0301) 0599 (0236) 0549 (0216) 0785 (0309)

172 (250) 0572 (0225) - 0457 (0180)

Pressure 042 027 028 033 exponent

indicated that the fluid energy mill AP had a mass median diameter of 63 Am compared to 90 pm for typical hammer mill ground AP Batch SB-110 (HMX) was made using 1700 wt Class E HMX and 1000 wt of the FEM AP A reference batch SB-98 (HMX) was made using the hammer mill ground AP Strand burn rates and relative castability were detershy

mined on both of the batches Results are shown in Table 3-40 and Fig 3-16

(1) Replacement of the hammer mill ground (9 pm) AP by the FEM ground (63 pm) AP increased strandburn rate to 0950 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0374 ins at 1000 psia) This exceeds the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) Strand pressure exponent appeared to be reduced with use of the FEM ground AP

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of finer ballistic modifier particle size on propellant properties As discussed in the ANAPHTPB propellant development section an attritor mill was used to size reduce the ballistic modifiers ammonium dichroshymate and copper chromite Batch SB-117 (HMX) was made using 200 wt

3-90

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPBbinder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper Chromite

Dimethyl silicone

(1000 cS)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground US Steel with anti-caking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground US Steel with antishycaking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium perchlorate ground

SB-l08 (Reference)

AN-20

1200

1500

200

200

-

2000

-

2900

-

1000

1000

SB-107 SB-109

ANH-19 ANH-21

1185 1185

1500 1500

200 100

200 100

015 015

2000 2000

2900 3100

-

1000 1000

- -

1000 1000

3-91

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations -Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation (Continuation 1)

Relative Castability Excellent Uncastable Mix could not castability be completed

cured up in mix bowl

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0665 (0262) 0673 (0265) -

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0818 (0322) 0808 (0318) -

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 026

Card gap tests

35 cards

55 cards

69 cards 3 positive 3 positive

attritor ground (17 pm) copper chromite 1700 wt Class E HMX and FEM ground (63 pm) AP No ammonium dichromate was used in this batch as a part of the overall effort to achieve the burning rate goal 089

cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with improved performance (Isc)castability and physical properties Reference Batch SB-116 (AN ) was made using as received (21 pm) copper chromite Table 3-41 summarizes results of Brookfield end-of-mix visosity and strand burn rate tests on these two batches These results led to the following conclusions

(1) In an IDP plasticized formulation using only 200 wt CU-0202 P as ballistic modifier coarse ground AN and 63 Im FEM ground AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 m increased the strand burn rate at 690

Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0724 to 0737 cms (0285 to 0290 ins) t_2

(2) No significant change in strand pressure exponent was observed

(3) Castability was good for both batches

3-92

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103

25401 0 1 100

2032 - A CURED IN RAM-225 RELEASED STRAND MOLD - 8

B STRAND CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK

1524- BURNED WITHOUT TREATMENT 6

EU C STRANDS CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK SPRAYED WITH RAM-225 DRIED THEN BURNED ui

1016- 4 0C oD

z 7I- 0 z z z

CA _B

o 0o

z z0508 2

V)

BATCH No SB-89 (HMX)

FOMULATION ANH-9

0254 I I i I 10-1 69 103 138- 207 345 690

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (IIX) Formulation ANH-9

3-93

Table 3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size

Variation (Class E HMX - DOA Plasticizer)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with antishycaking coating)

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with

anticaking coating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative castability

Strand burning rates

at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(at 1000 psia)

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-90 SB-91 SB-93 SB-95

ANH-9 ANH-10 ANH-11 ANH-13

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

1500 1500 1500 1500

4400 2900 1760

- 1500 2640 4400

_

1000 1000 1000 1000

Uncastable Uncastable Marginally Castable castable

- 0678 0678 0516 (0 267 )a (0234)a (0 2 0 3 )a

0953 0859 0859 0665 -(0 3 7 5 )a (0 3 3 8 )a (0 299)a (0 2 6 2 )a

034 035 036

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were cut

from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased

by RAM-225 release agent

3-94

Table 3-39 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX - IDP Plasticizer)

Batch No SB-94 SB-96

Formulation No ANH-12 ANH-14

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticizer) 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium diohromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class E 1500 1500

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 2900

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 1500 4400

Ammonium perchlorate ground 1000 1000

Relative Castability Good castability

Excellent castability

Strand burning rates at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

-

0836 (0 329 )a

0518 (0 204 )a

0655 (0258) a

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were

cut from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased by RAM-225 release agent

3-95

1016 1 040

eE aQCNO

DOA PLASTICIZER

z CI-o 100

lt 0762 030 - I--

IDP PLASTICIZER

z Z

a a z z

--- 1-shy

0508 I-I I I20

cn

0 20 40 60 80 100 FRACTION OF COARSE GROUND AN wt

Fig 3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN

3-96

C

Table 3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations -AP Particle Size Variation (HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

Ammonium perchloriate hammer mill ground (Micromerograph 50 wt point 9 gim)

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (Mieromerograph 50 wt point 63 pm)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 45 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Relative Castability

3-97

SB-98 ANH-16 Reference

1200

1500

200

200 shy

1700

2700

1500

1000

0653 (0257)

0810 (0319)

030

Good

castability

SB-110 ANH-16

1200

1500

200

200

1700

2700

1500

-

1000

0843 (0332)

0950 (0374)

017

Good castability

slightly more viscous than SB-98 (HMX)

1270 1 050

K K

CN4 E 0

1016 040 0

o 0

100

BURN RATE GOAL

z z

= 0762 - 030 D

z z

05081 I I I I 020 40 50 60 70- 80 90 100t

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) gm

Fig 3-16i Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-98

Table 3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Particle Size Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Copper chromite

As received (21 pm)

Attritor ground (17 pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground

Total

Relative castability

Brookfield end-of-mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F) Strand burning rates at 250C

(770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

3-99

SB-116 (Reference) SB-117

ANH-24A ANH-24B

1200 1200

1500 1500

200

- 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1500 1500

1000 1000

10000 10000

Good Good

168 136

0610 (0240) 0627 (0247)

0724 (0285) 0737 (0290)

028 024

As was observed with the ANAPAIHTPB propellant reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burn rates

Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better optimize the ballistic modifier system for the basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB propelshylant Previous to this point in the program the mixed ballisticmodifishyer system of 200 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) with 200 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was used It was desirable to reduce the total ballistic modifier level to less than 400 wt and recover some shy

performance (II delivered) Elimination of AD was also desirable because of its tendency to crosslink the R-45 prepolymer with subsequent degradation of propellant castability and physical properties Batches SB-132 (HMX) and SB-138 (HMX) were made using only as-receivedCU-0202 P as the ballistic modifier at the 200 wt and 300 wt levels respecshytively The objective of testing these two batches was to determine whether the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm

2

(1000 psia) could be achieved by using only CU-0202 P at levels less than 400 wt Brookfield end-of-mix and strandburning rates were measured on both batches Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-42 and they indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate achieved with 300 wt as-received CU-0202 P was 6nly 0810 cms (0319 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(2) Based on extrapolation the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) does not appear achievshyable even at 400 wt as-received CU-0202 P

(3) A mixed ballistic modifier system of AD and CU-0202 P appears necessary to meet the burning rate goal

The third batch SB-134 (HMX) was made using the mixed ballistic modifier system of 100 wt hammer mill ground (72 m) AD and 200 wt as-received CU-0202 P Brookfield viscosity and strand burning rates were also measured on this batch and results are also shown in Table 3-42 They indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate of 0879 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0346 ins at 1000 psia) was achieved with Batch SB-134 (HMX) This almost meets the goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosity of 21 kP at 520C (125 0 F) indicated the propellant had acceptable castability

Limited time and budget did not allow for any additional optimization of the ballistic modifier system Therefore Formulation ANH-33 [Batch SB-134 (HMX)] was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed inthe sections on Scale-Up and Ballistic Evaluation

3-100

---

Table 3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 [m

Ammonium dichromate Hamshymer mill ground 72 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

HMX Class E

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground 63 pm

Brookfield End-of-mix Viscosity kP at 520C (1250F)

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-132

ANH-34

1200

1500

200

2900

1500

1700

1000

10000

33

(500 psia) 0594 (0234)

At 690 Ncm2 0757 (0298) (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

3-101

SB-138 SB-134

ANH-32 ANH-33

1200 1200

1500 1500

300 200

--- 100

2800 2800

1500 1500

1700 1700

1000 1000

10000 10000

Could not 21 measure

0630 (0248) 0615 (0242)

0810 (0319) 0879 (0346)

036 051

In summary the following approaches were investigated as methods

of achievins faster propellant burning rates and the goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncmd (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(1) HMX class (particle size)

(2) HMX level

(3) Dimethyl silicone as ballistic modifier

(4) Finer AN particle size

(5) Finer AP particle size

(6) Finer CU-0202 P particle size

(7) Ballistic modifier type and level

Of these only (1) (2) (5) and (7) proved to be effective approaches

to faster burning rates

c Hazards Classification The Naval Ordnance Station (NOS) did some of the initial propellant hazard classification testing to define the maximum level of HMX which could be used and remain a Class 2 propellant The basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB formulation selected for testing was an 88 wt total solids HTPB (R-45) formulation with 150

wt aluminum and 10 wt ammonium perchlorate Tests were planned on formulations with and without the ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P Table 3-43 summarizes results of these hazard tests These results indicated that 20 wt Class E HMX (15 Mm)in non-ballistic modified formulations gave propellants which marginally met card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards) AP particle size appeared to affect card gap test results No firm conclusions could be made regarding the ballistic modified formulations

This effort to define the maximum HMX level for a Class 2 ballisshytic modified propellant was continued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with AFRPL support Card gap tests made on the ballistic modified formulations reported in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 are summarized in Table 3-44 for convenience

General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Maximum level of Class A HMX is greater than 1000 wt and less than 1500 wt for a ballistic modified formulation

to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

(2) Maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1500 wt and less than 2000 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

3-102

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Ingredients wt

AN (unground) 430 430 4776 4279 390 3862

AP 45p m 100 - - -

AP 6 [m - - 995 995 - -

AP 4 [m - 100- - - - -

AP 2 4m - - - - 100 99

HMX 15 pm 200 200 1493 1990 200 198

Al H-12 150 150 1493 1493 150 1485

HTPB Binder 120 120 1243 1243 120 1287

AD - - - - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

CU-0202 P - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

Lab Safety Tests

Impact sensitivity mm 375 375 350 275 -

Friction kg (lb) gt444 gt444 gt444 gt444 -

(980) (980) (980) (980)

ESD J gt125 L125 125 gt125

Field Safety Tests

Card gap cards 55 to 65 to 0 60 to 35 to 55 to 60 70 - 65 50 60

Cap neg neg neg neg neg neg

3-103

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data (Continuation 1)

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Unconfirmed burning neg neg neg neg neg neg

Critical dia cm (in) gt64 gt64 gt64 gt64 lt89 lt89 (25) (25) (25) (25) (35) (35)

aX-ray of samples showed evidence of voids

Table 3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A with Class E)

Batch No HMX Card Gap

Wt Class Positive Negative Cards

SB-88 10 A - 2 0 - 1 -35

SB-83 15 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-84 20 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-87 10 E - 2 0 - 1 35

SB-85A 15 E - 32 - 2 35

SB-86 20 E 1 - 35 1 70

Class E HMX was selected because higher levels could be incorporated and remain a Class 2 propellant and because it gave the best ballistic properties

3-104

Two additional small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better define the maximum level of Class E HMX The Class E HMX was varied to the 1900 wt and 1700 wt levels for Batches SB-97 (HMX) and SB-98 (HMX) respectively Card gap sensitivity strand burning rates and relative castability were measured in both batches Table 3-45 shows the test results These tests indicated the maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1900 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

The 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches were made varying Class E HIX level to 1500 1700 and 1750 wt Card gap verification tests were made on these batches as shown later in Table 3-49 and test results are summarized in Table 3-46

Results of all the tests indicated the maximum level of Class E IHMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt for a ballistic

) modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

d Processing Studies The relative castability of propellant was observed on the small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) development batches and used in the selection of formulations for evaluation in the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches Brookfield end-of-mix and pot life tests were measured on all of the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches

The coarse Class A HMX (W149 gim) has a better particle size than the fine Class E HMX (15 - 20 pm) for solids packing Consequently the Class A HMX yielded propellants with better castability than the Class E HMX (Table 3-35) However Class E HMX was selected for all the scale-up batches because higher HMX levels could be used and ballistic properties were better (faster burn rates and lower pressure exponents) The level of MX was generally limited by Class 2 card gap constraints before castability became unacceptable

The lower viscosity plasticizer IDP yielded propellants with significantly better castability than the plasticizer DOA with only a slight loss in propellant burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) (Tables 3-38 and 3-39) Therefore IDP was the selected plasticizer

Replacement of the very coarse unground AN prills by coarselyground AN improved castability but reduced propellant burning rate Consequently the fraction of AN coarse ground was limited to 34 to maximize burn rate consistent with good castability (Tables 3-38 and 3-39

Replacement of the hammer mill ground (90 14m) AP by the fluid energy mill ground (63 jim) AP made the propellant more viscous but castability remained good (Table 3-40) This change significantly increased propellant burning rate and made the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) achievable (Fig 3-16) Therefore the fluid energy mill ground AP (63 pm) was selected for use when it became available

3-105

Table 3-45 ANHMXAPAHTPB-Formulation-z HMX Level (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating)

Ammonium nitratecoatse -ground (US Steel with anticaking c6ating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative Castability shy

-

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards

55 Cards

69 Cards

3-166

SB-97 SB98 ANH-15 ANH-16

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1900 1700

-2500 2700

1500 1500

1000 1000

Good Good

castability castability

0678 (0267) 0653 (0257)

0826 (0325) 0810 (0319)

028 030

1---positive

--- 1 positive

4 positive 2 negative

---

---

---

---

---

Table 3-46 JPL Hazard Test Data (Class E)

HMX Batch No

Wt Class

SB-89 (HMX) 15 E

SB-92 (HMX) 15 E

SB-106 (HMX) 175 E

SB-141 (H4X) 17 E

Positive

4

3

I

I

I

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

2

1

Card Gap

Negative Cards

6 0

10 35

2 0

5

--- 10

--- 15

--- 20

--- 27

3 30

5 35

--- 69

2 70

--- 35

--- 60

--- 61

--- 62

3 63

1 65

10 69

3-107

Replacement of the as-received CU-0202 P (21 pm) by attritor ground CU-0202 P (17 pm) did not significantly affect propellant castashybility Since this change increased burning rate by only 2 the asshyreceived (21 pm) CU-0202 P was selected Increasing the Cu-0202 P level from 200 to 300 wt significantly increased propellant viscosity making it less castable (Table 3-42)

Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were shown to signifishycantly improve castability and pot life with the ANAPAlHTPB propellant After checking to determine these materials were compatible and safety properties were adequate these pot-life extenders were incorporated into the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant

e Combustion Problems The problem of incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered speciflc impulse was addressed for the basic ANHMXAPAlHTBP propellant early in the program Two approaches evaluated to improve metal combustion I Land delivered specific impulse were

(1) Use of aluminummagnesium (AlMg) alloys

(2) Replacement of aluminum by magnesium

This work (by NOS) was done concurrently Mith the development -CV of the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant using conventional aluminum For convenience and clarity all of the NOS propellant development work done with the R-45 HTPB binder is reported and discussed in this section

Table 4-47 summarizes results of motor tests on ANHMXAPA1HTPB propellants with no ballistic modifiers Propellant formulation variations made were

(1) Total solids loading (87 to 88 wt )

(2) AP particle size (20 and 200 [m)

(3) HMX (Class E) level (20 and 30 wt )

(4) Metal level (15 to 20 wt ) shy

(5) Metal type (Al -and AlMg alloy)

The motors tested were either 4536-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors or 1814-kg (40-1b) charge (FPC) motors at sea level conditions Corrections to vacuum conditions with E = 685 were made as shown in Table 4-47 General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Motor burning rates at 483 Ncm2 (700 psia) were all in the range of 0356 to 0457 cms (014 to 018 ins) Ballistic modifiers are required to meet burning rate goal of 089 Ncm2 (035 ins) with a pressure exponent of

042

3-108

Table 3-47 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation

Specific Impulse

Propellant Data N-skg (s)

Burning rate at 483 Ncm

2

AP Vacuumd (700 psi)Motor Percent Particle Percent Percent

Typeb of AP Size m of HMX of Metal Type of Metal Delivered c = 685 cms (ins)

TPC 10 200 20 20 Aluminum 19476 (1986) 0356 (014)

20 19 AlMg (9010) 19760 (2015) 21633 (2206) 0381 (015)TPCa 200

TPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 21114 (2153) 22271 (2271) 0381 (015)

TPC 200 20 15 AlMg (9010) 20359 (2076) 20908 (2312) 0356 (014)

0 TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20398 (2080) 22467 (2291) 0356 (014)

TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23134 (2358) 0356 (014)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 21045 (2146) 23222 (2368) 0457 (018)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23242 (2370) 0457 (018)

FPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 19192 (1957) 21898 (2233) 0445 (0175)

00 wt total solids loaded propellant the remainder are 88 wt a87 bTPC are 4536-kg (10-1b) charge motor grains

CFPC are 1814-kg (40-1b) charge motor grains dAll motor tests were made at sea level Correction to vacuum conditi6ns was made as follows

fFdt me + Pa Aeta Vac Isp ms =

CF Creq

Correction to desired expansion ratio (c req) was done by multiplying vac Isp ms by C

CF C act

(2) The maximum vac Isp ms e = 685 obtained for this series of tests were 23242 N-skg (2370 s) This was obtained using 15 wt conventional Al 20 wt Class E HMX and 10 wt 20 jim AP The performance goal was vac Isp ms

E = 71 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(3) Reducing the AP particle size from 200 to 20 gm significantly improved vac Isp ms pound1177 N-skg (C12s)] and increased

burning rate

(4) Increasing the Class E HMX level from 20 to 30 wt signishyficantly increased vac Is ms 686 N-skg (-7 s) However propellant with 30 wt C ass E HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Increasing the metal level from 15 wt to 19 or 20 wt significantly reduced vac inpMs

(6) Replacement of the conventional aluminum by the AlMg alloy

(9010) appeared to give a small performance gain 392 N-skg (14 s) However the data was too limited to draw

firm conclusions

Propellant development effort was continued in an effort to achieve the performance goals The ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P were selected based on work done by JPL In addition finer AP particle sizes were selected based on the ability of this approach to achieve both improved performance and faster burning rates A Class E HMX level of 20 wt O was selected as the maximum to meet card gap requirements for Class 2 propellants based on card gap tests available at that time Table 3-48 summarizes motor test and theoretical performance results on the three ballisttc modified propellant formulations evaluated Formushylation 2A used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system 10 wt 55 Jim AP and 15 wt conventional aluminum Formulation 2Bused 1 wt AD as ballistic modifier 10 wt 10 gm AP and 15 wt AlMg alloy (9010) Formulation 2C used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system no AP and 15 wt magnesium The motor test results shown are all from 45-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors Since several formulation variables were varied between the three formulations it is not possible to isolate just the effect of metal type on propellant performance However the following general conclusions can be made from this work

(1) Formulation 2A which used conventional aluminum was the most promising candidate The vac Isp ms E = 684of 24144 N-skg (2462 s) met the goal of vac Isp Ms E = 71 -2403 N-sks (245 s) Burning rate achieved was 076 cms at 483 Ncm (030 ins at 700 psia) compared to the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with a pressure exponent _04

(2) Formulation 2B which used the AlMg alloy (9010) had a theiretical Isp (1000147) nearly the same as formulashy

tion 2A but Vac Isp msC = 684 was only 23252 N-skg(2371 s) In addition the burning rate was only 053

3-10

---

---

Table 3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured

Propellant No

Ingredients wt

AN

AP

HMX (15 pm)

Al

AlMg alloy (9010)

Mg

AD

CU-0202 P

R-45M

DOA

Theoretical Density gcm 3

(lbin3 )

Theoretical I

(Iooo147 )a Lcm 2 (s)

Measured Isp N-skg (s) at e = 55

2A

410

100 (55 fim)

200

150

10

10

80

40

17051

(00616)

24978

(2547)

22810 (2326)

Measured Vac Is N-skg (s) 24144 corr to E = 68 (2462)

Burn rate at 483 Ncm3

(700 psia) cms 076 (ins) (030)

2B 2C

420 510

100 (10 pm) --shy

200 200

150 --shy

--- 150

10 10

--- 10

100 80

20 40

16829 16027

(00608) (00579)

24958 23997 (2545) (2447)

21310 20113 (2173) (2051)

23252 22673 (2371) (2312)

053 041 (021) (016)

aStandard Conditions Chamber pressure of 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and expanded to 1 atm (147 psia)

3-111

cms at 483 Ncm2 (021 ins at 700 psia) for this formulation This data suggests that there was no performance advantage in using the AlMg alloy compared to conventional aluminum

(3) Formulation 2C which used magnesium as the metal had theoshyretical density and theoretical Isp (1000147) values significantly lower than formulation 2A The measured Isp and burning rates confirmed that this was-the least attractive of the three formulations

This work was ended at this stage of the program Good Isp efficiencies were being achieved with conventional aluminum using 10 wt fine particlesize AP and the selected ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P

f Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Four formulashytions were selected for scale-up evaluation and motor tests throughout the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant development effort Table 3-49 shows these four formulations Major changes in the formulations which were made as a result of the development effort on the small scale were

(1) dhange from DOAt lower viscbsity lasti6izdr IDP to improveshycastability

(2) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH to improve castability and pot life

(3) Reductions of the total ballistic modifier level from 400 wt to 300 wt to improve performance

(4) Selection of 17 wt ClassE HMX to achieve maximum performance and burning rate within the constraint of a Class 2 propellant

(5) Changes in the AN type to the higher density harder prill Monsanto AN to improve castability and burn rate control

(6) Change from hammer mill ground 8-9 gm AP to the finer fluid energy mill ground 63 Itm AP to achieve faster burning rates

All four formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into 5 x 10 motors BATES motors and small-scale samples The motors were successfully tested and results are summarized and discussed in Subsection g Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

3-112

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No SB-89 SB-92 SB-106 SB-141

Formulation No ANH-9 ANH-12 ANH-18 ANH-33

Batch size kg (ib) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Ingredients wt

R-45 polymer 6470 6582 6528 6397

DOA plasticizer 4613

IDP plasticizer --- 4647 4609 4615

)OA plasticizer (HMX coating) 0187 0153 0191 0185

Lirosperse 11 P 0113 0113 0113 0113

UOP-36 0040

DTBH --- --- --- 0040

IPDI 0617 0559 0559 0610

Ammonium dichromate (ground 7 Mm) 200 200 200 100

Copper chromite (as received 21 pm) 200 200 200 200

Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500

--- --- ---

---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil U S Steel Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

U S Steel Monsanto ---

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8-9 Am fluid energy mill ground 63 Am

Totals

Brookfield apparent viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) (Viscosity kPtime after curative addition)

End-of-mix

(Continuation 1)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

1500

4400

1000

10000

2208 2018 2128

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

1500

2900

1500

1000

10000

1609 2819 2929 4139 4149

SB-106 SB-141

ANH-18 ANH-33

104 (230) 113 (250)

1750 1700

2900 2800

1250 1500

1000 --shy1000

10000 10000

1008 708 1418 1318 2228 1527 2438 2137

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Nam 2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm (750 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

20 cards 27 cards 30 cards 35 cards 60 cards 61 cards 62 cards 63 cards

65 cards

(Continuation 2)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

0599 (0236)

0721 (0284)

027

6 negative 4 positive

10 negative

---

---

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

0503 (0198) 0617 (0243) 0691 (0272) 0775 (0305)

031

2 negative 3 positive 1 positive 1 positive 3 negative 5 negative

SB-106

ANH-18

104 (230)

0566 (0223) 0683 (0269) 0767 Co302) 0818 (0322)

027

SB-141

AHN-33

113 (250)

0544 (0214) 0622 (0245) 0719 (0283) 0805 (0317)

037

1 positive 1 positive 2 positive 3 negative

1 positive 1 negative

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type (Continuation 3)

SB-89 SB-92 SB-I06 SB-141Batch No

Formulation No ANH9 ANH-12 ANH-18 AHN-33

Batch size kg (lb) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Card Gap Tests (Contd)

69 cards --- --- --- 10 negative

70cards --- --- 2 negative 6 positive

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770 F) gcm3 (lbin3 ) 16746 (00605) 16359 (00591) 16691 (00603) 16663 (00602)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties

Sm 1cm 2 (psi) --- 49 (71) --- 64

em --- 19 --- 68

44 (64)--- 49 (71) ---Sb Ncm 2 (psi)

68eb --- 19 ---

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-49 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) End-of-mix viscosities and pot life improved as changes were made to IDP plasticizer use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH and Monsanto AN End-of-mix viscosity for batch SB-141 (HMX) was 7 kP at 520C (125 0 F) and pot life was greater than 37 h

(2) Faster burning rates were achieved as the HNX level was increased as the Gulf Oil AN was replaced by US Steel AN and then by Monsanto AN and as the hammer mill ground AP was replaced by the finer fluid energy mill ground AP

(3) Maximum strand burning rate achieved at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) was 081 cms (032 ins) with batch SB-106 (HMX)

(4) Strand pressure exponents on all four formulations were in the range of 027 to 037 Motor pressure exponents were lower than strand pressure exponents These low-pressure exponents are advantageous and meet the goal of lt042

(5) Card gap tests verified that the maximum level-of Class E HMX which meets the card gap requirements for a Class 2 propellant is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt

(6) Measured densities were in the range of 16359 to 16746 gcm3 (00591 to 00605 lbin3) for the four formulations

(7) The JANNAF uniaxial properties were oor with maximum stress values in the range of 44 to 49 Ncm (64 to 71 psi) and strain at maximum stress values in the range of 19 to 68

g Ballistic Evaluation ANHMXAPAIHTPB Systems The candidate alternate propellant containing HMX was evaluated in BATES motor firings at three levels of HMX 150 170 and 175 The 150 HMX formulation yielded the highest measured Isp Theoretical calculations had shown 170 to 175 to be optimum for maximum Isp Data from the BATES motor tests suggests that the actual optimum HMX level is somewhere between 15 and 16 This level of HMX in the propellant has been demonstrated to be within the Class 2 requirement The ballistic test data for the three HMX systems follows

(1) Formulation ANH-12 (150 HMX) Figure 3-17 shows the burning rate KN and pressure exponent for this propellant The BATES motor test data is summarized in Table 3-50

(2) Formulation ANH-39 (170 HMX) The ballistic evaluation test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-18 and Table 3-51

3-117

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104 61524 1 1 1

41016-

-2 2lt E0508-

0 KN -IA BATES MOTOR DATA KN

100 1 -1 0264 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 1000 10

0 0203_ 800 -8 0152 n 0310152 600 6

D 0102 - 400 -4

0051 - 200 - 2

I I I I 100025 1 -2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895 2

PRESSURE Ncm

Figure 3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92

3-n18

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No E-1466 E-1467

Test Date Nov 14 1975 Nov 26 1975

BatchChange No SB-921 SB-922

Nozzle Bt initial 4699 3764 cm (in) (1850) (1482)

Nozzle Dt final 4374 3571 cm (in) (1722) (1406)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 2981 2979 (6572) (6567)

Wp expended kg (ib) 29395 2940

(64806) (6482)

wt expended 986 987

Web thickness cm (in) 45789 4610 (18207) (1815)

tb (burn time) s 735 586

ta (action time) s 764 624

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 310 531 (450) (770)

PC max Ncm2 (psia) 386 731 (560) (1060)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 376 702 (545) (1018)

AP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26245 41056 (38066) (59547)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26779 42285 (38840) (61329)

3-119

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

Pa (3P dttb) Ncm2

(psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

It (1F dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion Ratio

E-1466

Nov 14 1975

SB-921

3511 (5179)

0630 (0248)

2253

2411

14507 (47594)

962

6193679 (1392395)

842675 (189441)

6198003 (1393367)

207921 (21202)

9249

237546 (24223)

70

E-1467

Nov 26 1975

SB-922

7006 (10162)

0787 (0310)

3511

3689

14983 k49156)

1006

6349309 (1427382)

1083497 (24358)

6559790 (147470)

220218 (22456)

916

235526 (24017)

70

3-120

PRESSURE psia

10 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 104 1524 I 6

1016 4

0508 0- 2

u KN A BATES MOTOR TESTS N

0254 - 1000 10lt 2 0 5x 10 MOTOR TESTS 8 - 1

0203800g- 8

Z 0152 n 037 600 6 z z

0102 400 4

0051 -- 200 2

I I1 -2

0025 69 138 345 690 1379 t 3447 6895

-PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 AHHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-141

3-121

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 PropellantTable 3-51

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

E-1490E-1489Run No

62376 62476Test Date

SB-1412 SB-1411BatchChange No

352684572Nozzle Dt initial cm (in) (1800) (13885)

3444Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 4531

(1784) (1356)

30133017W loaded kg (ib) (6651) (6643)

29332938Wp expended kg (lb) (6477) (6466)

97339738 wt expended

Web thickness cm (in) 4633 4643 (1824) (1828)

570747tb (burn time) s

638 ta (action time) S

794

Pc initialNem2 (psia) 345 683 (500) (990)

362 Pc maximum Ncm2 (psia) 752 (525) (1090)

Pc final Ncm2 N(psia) 324 649 (470) (942)

41665fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 25961 (37654) (6043)

ft dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26554 42802 (6208)(38514)

Pc ( P dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 347 731 (524) (1060)

3-122

Table 3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

r at P0 cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

F dt (tb) Ns (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

it cfF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion ratio (E)

De cm (in)

2Ae cm (in2 )

3-123

E-1489 E-1490

62376 62476

SB-1412 SB-1411

0620 0815 (0244) (0321)

2330 3989

2395 4077

143Q7 13540 (46940) (44421)

945 895

5979680 6258348 (1344286) (1406933)

8007 10978 (1800) (2468)

60958 64441 (13704) (14487) 202056 21388

(20604) (2181)

887 872

23183 22810 (2364) (2326)

716 716

12233 9426 (4816) (3711)

117522 69781 (18216) (10816)

(3) Formulation ANH-18 (175 HMX) The ballistic evaluation

test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-19 and Table 3-52

h Summary Two ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant formulations were developed that conformed to the program constraints for 3 wt HCl in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards classification These two formulations are ANH-12 (15 wt Class E HMX) and ANH-33 (17 wt Class E HMX) Table 3-53 summarizes and compares the properties of these two formulations versus the program goals Both formulations met the goals for pressure exponent and hazard classification but not the goal for burning rateor delivered vacuum I

The following summarizes the status of the ANH4XAPAlHTPB propellant development

(1) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic propellants

(2) Demonstrated the propellant is Class 2 with levels of Class E HMX up to 17 wt

(3) Demonstrated good castability and pot life greater than 37 h for formulations with 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(4) Successfully loaded and test fired 45-kg (10-1b) motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with formulations containing 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(5) Demonstrated a delivered vacuum Isp (E = 716) of 23752 N-skg (2422 s) with formulation ANH-12

(6) Demonstrated a BATES motor burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) and a pressure exponent of 037 with formulation ANH-33

(7) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

(8) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 150 and 170

11 Baseline PBAN Propellant Modification

The current baseline propellant system in the Shuttle SRM is

an 86 solids 16 aluminum PBAN propellant developed by the Thiokol Corporation This baseline propellant has a burning rate of approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) pressure In order to simplify the task of matching the burning rates of the alternate propellant and the PBAN baseline-propellant at 400Ncm2 (580 psia)

-3-124

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 103

1524 I 6

1016 - 4

A BATES MOTOR DATA 0508 - 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 20508 n =031

E -_ Ko

U IN

u- 0254 - -1000 10shy0203 -800 8

oD 0 z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0102 - 400 4

0051 200 2

0025 I I I0 - 2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Figure 3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-106

3-125

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HNX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

Nozzle Dt initial 4592 3543 cm (in) (1808) (1395)

Nozzle Dt final 4463 3388 cm (in) (1757) (1334)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3022 3023 (6662) (6664)

Wp expended kg (ib) 2956 2957

(6516) (6519)

Wt expended 9781 9782

Web thickness cm (in) 4615 4615 (1817) (1817)

tb (burn time) s 788 - 628

ta (action time) s 818 665

PC initial Ncm2 (psia) 248 483 (360) (700)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 352 717 (510) (1040)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 296 622 (430) (902)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 262146 42991 (380212) (62353)

fp dt (ta) N-scm 2 (lb-s) 265874 44074 (385619) (63924)

3-126

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HMX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 1471 3026 (4825) (9929)

r at Pc cms (ins) 0587 0734 (0231) (0289)

KN initial 2353 3953

KN average 2421 4131

C ms (fts) 14159 13741 (46425) (45083)

C efficiency 945 916

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 599055 6320560 (134673) (1420919)

F (fF dttb) N (ib) 7602 100645 (1709) (22626)

it (fF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s) 608823 6498885 (136869) (1461008)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 201478 215001 (20545) (21924)

Isp efficiency 8901 8868

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s) 231761 229240 (23633) (23376)

Expansion ratio 71 72

3-127

Table 3-53 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goal

Achieved Value

Alternate Propellant SB-92 (HMX) SB-141 (HMX)

Property Goal ANH-12 ANH-33 (15 HMX) (17 HMX)

Burning Rate at 089 0785 0813 690 Ncm 2 (035) (0309) (032) (1000 psia) BATES Motor cms (ins)

Pressure Exponent lt042 032 037 BATES motor

Delivered Vacuum 2403 23732 23183 Isp N-skg (s) (gt245) (2422) (2364)

71)

HCl in Exhaust 3

Meets Card Gap Requirement for Class 2 yes yes Class 2 required (negative (negative

at 30 cards) at 30 cards)

pressure it was decided to miodify the baseline propellant system to

meet a burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) This modified baseline applies to the dual propellant concept with the alternate propellant only It does not apply to the current Shuttle design requirements The 081 cms (03 ins) burning rate has been achieved and demonstrated in 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings The modified PBAN formulation is referred to in this report as the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

In modifying the basic PBAN formulation to meet the new burning

rate requirement a study was made of the effect on the burning rate of adjusting the Fe203 burning rate catalyst concentration and the

particle size blend of the AP oxidizer The desired burning rate was achieved with a formulation containing a biomodal blend of

Table 3-54 gives the final formulationoxidizer and 0 Fe203 the density and some burning characteristics of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

3-128

Table 3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend

Ingredients Wt

Ammonium perchlorate

200 pm 4900 10 pm 2100

Aluminum (Alcoa 1230) 1600

PBAN polymer 1204

DER-331 196

10000

Density 2500 (770F) = 17743 gcm3 (00641 lbin3 ) Burn Rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 081 cms (032 ins) Pressure exponent n = 0228 at I

345 Ncm 2 (00 psia) lt Pc lt 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

The burning rate of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant was verified by test firing several 5 x 10 motors using 45 kg (-10 lb) of propellant over a range of pressures Figure 3-20 shows the burning rates and corresponding Kn values The burning rate equation for this modified PBAN propellant based on the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings is

r = 00668 PC0228

3-129

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 8104

1524 6

1016- 4

0508 - 2

E K - 0 5x 10 MOTOR DATAshy

0254 - 1000 10 - 1

0203 n = 0228 800 8 z 0152- a = 00668 600 6

z z 0102 -400 4

200 20051

0025 _I _I I I 10-2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant)

Batch No SB-78

3-130

SECTION IV

UNWORKED AREAS

The program as originally planned included a significant effort in the development of the candidate alternate propellant physical propshyerties and checks to verify adequacy of candidate alternate propellant in the bipropellant grain The reduction of funds and scopeof the program left many of these tasks unworked If the alternate propelshylant concept for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Motor is pursued on another program then the following unworked areas should be worked

(1) Candidate alternate propellant physical property improvement

(2) Physical property characterization of unaged alternate

propellant

(3) Aging of alternate propellant

(4) Bipropellant interface bond unaged and aged

(5) Alternate propellant insulation interface bond unaged and aged

(6) Performance tests at altitude on candidate alternate propellant

(7) Motor tests with bipropellant grain

(8) Characterization of alternate propellant safety properties

The generally poor physical properties (primarily low strain) measured with both the ANAPAlHTPB and the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propelshylants are believed due primarily to the following causes

(1) Poor bond of the HTPB binder to the oxidizer particles

AN and HMX

(2) Crosslinking of the R-45 HTPB polymer through the double bonds caused by the acidity of AN

The approach planned to solve the poor bonding properties to the oxidizer particles was development of bonding agents for both the AN and the HMX Aerojet Solid Propulsion Company has demonstrated significantly improved physical properties in HMXAPAlHTPB propellants using polyureas as bonding agents Epoxides and polyureas were considered as candidate bonding agents for the AN Development of an acid scavengershywas considered as one of the approaches to the second cause of the poor physicals

4-1

SECTION V

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this alternate propellant development effort led to the following general conclusions

(1) It is technically feasible to minimize (lt_3 wt ) release of HCl above 1981 km (65000 ft)

(2) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants Formushylation ANH-12 is the best formulation developed to date

(3) Propellant with 17 wt Class E HMX meets card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(4) The basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant is the second most promshyising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants

(5) More than 1000 wt AP (gt3 HCI in propellant exhaust) is required in the ANAPAlHTPB propellant to meet the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) Formulation AN-71 with 2000 wt AP is the best formulation of this type developed to date

(6) The basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant (0 HCl) is the least promising candidate and probably not viable for achieving program goals

(7) A few of AP is essential to achieve good aluminum comshybustion

(8) Good castability and acceptable pot life were achieved with all three basic alternate propellants

(9) Additional development effort is needed to improve the physical properties of any of the candidate propellants

(10) The small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justify the potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradashytion

(11) The Monsanto phase stabilized E-2 AN is the preferred AN type because it has the best physical and handling propershyties at comparable cost compared to other AN types

(12) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 15 and 17

5-I

(13) With additional effort to optimize the formulation with regard to HMX level burning rate modifier level and oxidizer particle size the program goals ban be met with an ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant system

5-2

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM

SOLUBILITY OF MTN INI HYDROCARBON BINDER

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

MMORANDUM

From 2051BCTo 563 Via 205

Subj Solubility of MTN in hydrocarbon binder

1 A study was conducted to determine if MTN could be used in the R45 binder system for the NASA II propellant Dicetyladipate (DOA) would be used for a co-solvent

2 Figure 1 is a portion of a phase diagram for the MTN-DOA-R45 system Areas to the right of the curve are two phase Areas to the left of the curve are single phase The effect of temperature is also shown

3 For Figure 2 TP90B was used instead of DOA TP90B is not as effective a co-solvent as DOA

4 Beccause PPG-1225 (a polypropylene glycol) is soluble both in R45 afidMTN it also was invesrigated PFG-1225 has an advantage over DOA in that it is a reactive polymer and could contribute to the mechanical strength as well as providingco-solubility In Figure 3 a 5050 mixture of R45 and PGshy1225 was used for the starting material The solubility of MTN was determined Because PPG-1225 was not a very goodco-solvent DOA was added to enhance the solubility Areas to the right of the curve are two phase and areas to the left of the curve are single phase

5 For Figure 4 a starting material of 733 R-45 and 261 PPG-1225 was used DOA was used to enhance the solubility of MTN in the system

6 It was determined that adiponitrile was not solulle in R45 and therefore could not be used to replace DOA

7 It was determined that R-18 (a polyglycol adipate) was not soluble in R45 and therefore could not be used to replacePPG-1225

8 A sample from Figure 1 was cured with IPDI This will be used to evaluate the long term effect of the nitrate ester on the binder system

Enclosure (1)

A-i

OrNA PALi I

1

ROOM--H- 2 - I

____

-OM I H j 1 35 TEMPERATURE i TI I ItI

I I I I

25

I 3 0 Z _--_ _ _

i i ii

5 n

JI t II it

t - -- -

151 1 1H - IL I

i s _ _

I- III I I I

715

MTffN 20 2 P

Figure 1 So bility of DOA and TN plusmnn R-A5

A-2

- -

40

Lj

r -

11- f

- - iutm

30 HH

-4-

__I_ ____

~ I

~vt

_

[ I_ _ iJ

25 _ _ _

1 1kH I __ _ _ _- _ _ __ _ _

-H 71

- r T--- W 4J-W-L -- t ___ __

_ _ _ __ _ _

q----i- -

52

Figure2 Solubility o f P9BadM1 nR4

A-3

iplusmn II1 -shyI~hhiI4plusmnplusmnt~~t~ -

LL J-

rO zt_-il 4 it-T i -- - -- --a -- 4- shy

-- 4 tL ---L-C-- 1 ------ 13-F- --shy

--- 4 i

I _

I I --0F

L II

it I _ _ _- _ I___

I- - -- - - - ---- shy--_ _ __ __-L J _ _

I - i t1 hIIt -____I j I

-+4 4 1 - - - -I 7 _ -J shy______ _ 2---2--I_lc_

L L rI-T- r

4 -I - -t -- u

10 15 20 25 30 N

Figure 3 Solubility of DOA and LMN in 50 R-4550 PG-1225

A-4

1

35 f

it-lt-ir

II I II

303i-- h

4o

z5-11144_FLI Lb deg T - shy i

bull

25

- -

20

I

- i11 fI1I

Ii JIf j -shy

1 iifIF

I I j I

dstkj tji--4

-4--4 1

1

I0tLLIL t

I

1wi

IFI 4 I

r

iiL -shy plusmn4 4 - H _

64211

I

L3

M -44

t

-i-

__

5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 4 ltSolubility of DOA and MTN in 733 R-45267 PPG-1225

A-5

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

9 -Ifan 88 (or 84) solids loaded 6 polymeric binder system will give acceptable physical properties then the

following formulations should be investigated

R-45 PPG1225 DA MT__N Al AP 1HM AN

10 4360 - -40 20 15 20 44 16 36 24 15 10 20 43

5360 - 40 20 15 10 10 44 1-6 36 24 15 10 10 53

15 10 20 3960 - 66 34 44 16 62 38 15 10 20 39

To properly evaluate these they should be compared to

AL AP HMK ANR-45 DOA 5360 60 15 10 20

10 53100 20 15 20

A quick look at some of the theoretical results to date indishycate that these substit-utions of - MTNfor Inert polymer -may result ina gain of about18 pounds seclb in impulse and a gain of 0001 poundscu in in density

C EJOHNSON

Copy to 205 2051BC 2051C1 TDI

A-6

PU BLICATION79-29

Page 4: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

The research described in this publication was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology under NASA Contract No NAS7-100

-PREFACE

This final report describes the work done to develop candidate alternate propellants for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor

- This work was done by theSolid Propulsion and Environmental Systems Section Control and Energy Conversion Division of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville Alabama

iii

DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS

AD ammonium dichromate

AFRPL Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory

Ae exit area

Al aluminum

A1203 aluminum oxide

Afros Alrosperse

AN ammonium nitrate

AP ammonium perchlorate

BATES Ballistic Test and Evaluation System

C characteristic exhaust velocity

CU-0202 P copper chromite catalyst (trade name of Harshaw Chemical Co)

De exit diameter

DOA dioctyl adipate

DSC differential scanning calorimeter

Dt throat diameter

ESD electrostatic discharge

ETS Edwards Test Station

DTBH 25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone

eb elongation at break

em elongation at maximum stress

E expansion ratio

F thrust

F average thrust

FeF3 ferric fluoride

Fe203 iron oxide

FEM fluid energy mill

iv

HCI hydrogen chloride

HMX cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine

HTPB hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene-

IDP isodecyl pelargonate

IPDI isophorone diisocyanate

Isp0 specific impulse sea level optimum Pc 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) Isp ms measured specific impulse

it total impulse

KP potassium peroblorate

KN ratio of propellant burn area to throat area

kP kilopoise (1 kP = 100 N-sm2)

Mg magnesium

iam microns

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

n pressure exponent

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOS Naval Ordnance Station (Indian Head Md)

Pa ambient pressure

PHAN polybutadiene acrylic acid acrylonitrile terpolymer

Pe exit pressure

PC chamber pressure

PC average chamber pressure

PPG-1225 polypropylene glycol

Protech 2002 CSD proprietary metal-deactivating antioxidant (trade name)

r burning rate

hydroxy-terminated polyester

R-45M hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene

v

R-18

Sb tensile strength at break

SL opt sea level optimum

Sm maximum tensile strength

SRM solid rocket motor

ta action time

tb web burn time

tEWAT time at end of web action time

TMETN 111-trimethylolethane trinitrate

RAM-225 silicone oil in solvent (release agent)

UOP-36 N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine

UV ultraviolet

Nweight flow rate

W p Propellant weight

Zr Zirconium

p density

vi

ABSTRACT

This report documents the work done by the Caltech-Jet PropulsionLaboratory of NASA for the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA on a Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program The work was done as a Phase I follow-on effort to a previous Phase 0 feasibility study The program was designed to investigate three candidate propellant systems for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) which would eliminate or greatly reducethe amount of HC produced in the exhaust of the Shuttle SRM Ammonium nitrate was selected for consideration as the main oxidizer with ammonium perchlorate and the nitramine cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine (HMX) as secondary oxidizers The amount of ammonium perchlorate used was limited to an amount which would produce an exhaust containing no more than 3 HC1

Development work was carried out on three basic candidate propellantsystems (1) a mixed oxidizer of ammonium nitrate and ammonium perchlorate (2) a mixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate and HMX and (3) amixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate ammonium perchlorate and HMX All three systems contained 15 aluminum powder and had a total solids loading of 88 A urethane binder based on a hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene cured with a diisocyanate was selected as the binder system

The first and third propellant systems outlined above were developed to the point of successful scale-up and loading of 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes and successful test firing of 45-kg (10-1b) test motors and 32-kg(70-1b) BATES motors The second propellant system the ANHMX oxidizer system received only very limited development due to a out-back in both the funds and schedule time initially planned for this program All three propellants had satisfactory processing characteristics however at the 88 solids loading

The first and third propellant systems (the ANAP and the ANHMXAPoxidizer systems) were both also subjected to hazard testing and were demonstrated to conform to Class 2 hazard classification with HMX levels up to 17 wt in the HMX-containing propellant The second oxidizer combination system (the ANHMX) was not characterized as to hazards classification for the reasons mentioned earlier

The utilization of the low-Hl-producing alternate propellant was planned to be in ccmbinatidn with the current baseline PBAN propellantin a dual propellant design Therefore mutual compatibility between the two propellants was essential In order to lessen the severity of the burning rate requirement for the alternate propellant it was decided to decrease the burning rate specification for the PBAN baseline propellant to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) A modified baseline PBAN propellant formulation was therefore developed to conform to the lower burning rate specification It should be pointed out here that this modified baseline propellant system applies only to the dual propellantgrain design and does not relate in any way to the specifications of the present system being developed for the current Shuttle SRM The ballistic properties of the modified baseline PBAN propellant were demonstrated in several 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

vii

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION - 1-1

II SUMMARY- 2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPA1HTPB ------------------------- 2-2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXAlHTPB ------------------------ 2-2

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB --------------------- 2-2

D SYSTEM NO 4 MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE --------------- 2-3

III PHASE I PROGRAM -------------------------------------------- 3-1

A OBJECTIVE -------------------------------------------- 3-1

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS ---------------------------------- 3-1

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS ------------------------- 3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA ------------------------------------- 3-2

E PROGRAM APPROACH -------------------------------------- 3-2

F NOS PARTICIPATION ------------------------------------- 3-5

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE ------------ ---------------------- 3-5

H DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------- 3-6

IV UNWORKED AREAS --------------------------------------------- 4-1

V CONCLUSIONS ------------------------------------------------ 5-1

APPENDIX

A SOLUBILITY OF MTN IN HYDROCARBON BINDER -------------- A-i

Figures

3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB --------- 3-14

3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5 AP in ANAPAlHTPB --------- 315

ix

3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPAlHTPB -------------- 3-16

3-4 Specific Volume- of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature--------------------------------------- 3-26

3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ---------------------- 3-31

3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Gulf AN) ------------------- 3-39

3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-40

3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ---------------------------- 44

3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73 ---------------- 57

3-10 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74 ------ 3-58

3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTBP Propellants ---------------------------- 3-65

3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140 --------------- 74

3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-89

3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (HMX) Formulation ANH-9 ----------------------------------- 3-93

3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN ---------- 3-96

3-16 Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------ 3-98

3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92 -------------------------------------- 3-118

3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-11 ------------------------------------- 3-121

3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-l06 ------------------------------------- 3-125

x

3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant) Batch No SB-78 -------------------------------------- 3130

Tables

21 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ---------------------------------- 2-4

22 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-5

23 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-6

3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN ------------------------------------------- 3-7

3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN --------------------------------------- 3-9

3-3 Propellant Exhaust Composition ----------------------- 3-13

3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations ----------------------------------- 3-18

3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-20

3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-21

3-7 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received Properties ------------------------------------------- 3-23

3-8 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics -------------------------------------- 3-24

3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-28

3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P---------------------------------------- 3-32

3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-33

3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPA1HTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-36

3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-38

xi

3-14 Evaluation of-Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 42

3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 43

3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants -------------------------- 45

3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------- 48

3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------ 3-50

3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB

Propellants ------------------------------------------ 3-52

3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations --------- 54

3-21 BATES-Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant ---- 3-59

3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant ---- 3-61

3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Level Variations ----- 3-66

3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (2 Ballistic Modifier) ------------------- 3-68

3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation ---------- 3-70

3-26 BATES Motor Test Data Summary AN-71 Propellant ------ 3-72

3-27 AN4APAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goals --------------------------------------------- 3-75

3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests -Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------ 3-76

3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-77

3-30 ANHMXHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX) --------------- 3-79

3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------------ 3-81

3-32 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHNXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-82

xii

3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests ----------------------------------------shy 3-83

3-34 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) ------------------------------shy 3-85

3-35 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX) -----------------------------shy 3-87

3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)-----------shy 3-90

3-37 ANHNXADHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation ----------------------------- 3-91

3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX DOA Plasticizer)------------- 3-94

3-39 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX IDP Plasticizer)------------- 3-95

3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Particle Size Variation (MX) ------- ------------------------- 3-97

3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - BallisticModifier Particle Size Variation ------------------------------ 3-99

3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-101

3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data --------------------------------- 3-103

3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A With Class E)---------------------------------------- 3104

3-45 ANHMXAPAiHTPB Formulation - HMX Level (Class E HMX) ---------------------------------------- 3-106

t46-PL Hazard Test Data (Class E)----------------------- 3-107

M3-47 NOS Space ShuttleAlternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation ----------------------- 3-109

3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured -------- 3-111

3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

ANHMXAPHTPB Propellant Type ----------------------- 3-113

3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant ---- 3-119

3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-33 Propellant ---- 3-122

3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-18 Propellant ---- 3-126

xiii

3-53 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties-vs Goal ----------------------------------- 3-128

3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend --------------------------- --------------------- 3-129

xiv

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

This report presents results from the JPL study to investigatethe feasibility of developing an acceptable alternate propellant systemfor the Shuttle solid rocket motor (SEM) boosters based on the non-chlorine containing oxidizer ammonium nitrate (AN) The following basic criteria for this Phase 0 feasibility study were established by the NASA-MSFC

(1) A five-month feasibility study would be undertaken

(2) Any candidate propellants must conform to a hazards classishyfication of Class 2 as determined by card gap tests

(3) The propellant exhaust must not contain more than 3 HC Zero HCl was to be the goal

Following the above guidelines the JPL began a Phase Zero fiveshymonth feasibility program in September of 1974 (Ref 1) JPL was directedby MSFC to investigate four basic propellant systems mutually agreed upon by MSFC and JPL These four basic propellant systems were the following

(1) AN20 Albinder

(2) AN10 Albinder

(3) AN5 AP20 Albinder

(4) AN5 AP10 Albinder

Toward the end of the Phase 0 program the above four basic proshypellants had been developed to a point of scale-up of each formulation to 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes loading and test firing of 227-kg(5-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests Programresults at this point had demonstrated that

(1) Good processability of an 88 solids loaded ammonium nitrate propellant was possible (Previous to this workthe maximum solids achieved with ammonium nitrate systems was approximately 80)

(2) A few percent (5 to 10) of ammonium perchlorate as a co-oxidizer in the ammonium nitrate systems was essential to satisfactory aluminum combustion

(3) An aluminum content of 20 in the ammonium nitrate system was considerably above optimum for maximum delivered specific impulse

With these results serving as new guidelines a fifth formulation was developed and evaluated in BATES motor tests This propellant formulation

1-1

was an 88 solids formulation of the following composition 63 AN10 AP15 Al12 HTPB binder

The main conclusion drawn from the results of this five-month feasibility study was that with the necessary time and funds the develshyopment of an alternate propellant system for the Shuttle SRM based largely on ammonium nitrate as the oxidizer was feasible The fifth propellant described above was selected as a baseline candidate system and served as the basis for establishing the goals and criteria for a Phase I follow-on effort to this feasibility study

The concept for the utilization of the alternate propellant was a dual propellant solid rocket motor -The Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor would be manufactured containing the alternate low-HCl propellant first as an outer layer of propellant followed by an inner layer of the current PBAN propellant modified to the new burning rate requirement During a Shuttle vehicle launch the baseline PBAN propellant would burn for the first phase of Shuttle Booster operation At an altitude of approxshyimately 1981 km (65000 ft) the PBAN propellant would be expended and the burning transitioned into the low-HCl (less than 3 by weight of the exhaust products) alternate propellant The feasibility of a satisshyfactory transition from a propellant with an all-ammonium perchlorate oxidizer to one consisting primarily of ammonium nitrate oxidizer was also demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by successfully manufacshyturing and test firing a dual propellant BATES motor charge

1-2

SECTION II

SUMMARY

This summary is a general over-view of the Alternate Propellant Program A more detailed summary of each respective area of effort is included in the main body of this report The primary objective of the program was to develop a candidate alternate propellant for the Shuttle SRM boosters which would eliminate or minimize the HCl in the exhaust from the solid propellant boosters during operations above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude A set of program constraints was defined to serve as guidelines for the Phase I program effort Among the constraints was the requirements of a Class 2 hazards classification for any candidate propellant The detailed constraints have been outlined in the foregoing pages Along with these program guidelines specific goals were estabshylished that were as follows

(1) Propellant burning rate = 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) Propellant pressure exponent of the burning rate lt 042

(3) Vacuum delivered specific impulse gt 2402 N-skg (245 s) at an expansion ratio of 716

(4) Matched burning rates of the alternate propellant and the baseline PBAN propellant system at 400 Ncm2 (580 psia)

(5) HCl content of the propellant exhaust lt 3

Goal (4) also introduced the requirement of modifying the burning rate of the existing Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a burning rate requirement consistent with the foregoing goals for the alternate proshypellant The burning rate requirement for the modified Shuttle baseline propellant PBAN propellant was established to be 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) chamber pressure

Three basic propellant systems were defined as candidate systems to be developed within these constraints and guidelines The three systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

Based on the results from the Phase 0 program that preceded this Phase I program it was established that the aluminum content would be held constant at 15 wt in all formulations Also the AP content of the No 1 and No 3 system was to be 10 A status summary of each of the three alternate propellant systems and the modified PBAN Shuttle baseline propellant follows

2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPAlHTPB

This propellant system contains 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) and 15 aluminum powder The development has progressed through the static testing of 32-kg (70-1b) propellant charges in the BATES motor static testing being limited to sea level conditions A vacuum delivered Isp at an expansion ratio eof 70 corrected from the sea level data of 2281 N-skg (2326 s) has been demonstrated This measured value of Is is equivalent to 888 of the theoretical value at the test condiions A burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) of 0546 cms (0215 ins) with a pressure exponent of the burning rate of 0278 has also been demonstrated with BATES motor firings As can be seen the Isp and burning rate goals have not been attained whereas the pressure exponent goal has been exceeded by a considerable margin It is doubtful at this point whether the Isp or the burning rate goals can be achieved with this basic system within the present program conshystraints One way of achieving the ballistic goals would be to increase the AP content of this propellant To do so however would increase the HC content of the exhaust above that of the current exhaust conshystraint of not more than 3 wt of HC1

In order to meet the specific impulse and burning rate goals a propellant formulation containing 20 wt of AP was developed and tested first in 45-kg (10-1b) motors followed by two 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings The specific impulse goal of 2402 N-hkg (245 s) was attained with this propellant The burning rate at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) exceeded the 089-cms (035-ins) goal A burning rate of 097 cms (038 ins) was measured The pressure exponent measure was 048 which is higher than the goal However it is believed that this pressure exponent can be reduced The HC1 content in the exhaust at an expansion ratio of 716 is calculated to be 6 wt This 6 HC1 still represents an 80 reduction in the HC1 content from that of the baseline PBAN propellant system The-hazards classification of the ANAPA1HTPB system is Class 2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXA1HTPB

This system contains 15 aluminum also but no AP Due to a cutback in projected program funds however thedecision was made to discontinue the development of this system This decision was made very early in the development phase of this propellant and therefore no useful ballistic data is available at this time

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB

Of the three alternate propellant systems initially planned for development this system is the best candidate to date for meeting all the program goals Theoretical calculations showed that the maximum specific impulse for this propellant system was in the range of 170 to 175 HMX (Table 3-2) Therefore this system with three levels of HMX was developed scaled up to 113-kg (250-1b) mixes and loaded and test fired in 45-kg (10-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b)

2-2

BATES motor firing Of the three levels of HMX evaluated in motor firing the highest ISD was measured with the formulation containing 15 wt HMX showing that the experimental optimum HMX level- is somewhat less than 17 wt for this system The 15 and 17 wt HMX formulations were demonstrated to be Class 2 whereas the 175 wt HMX propellant was borderline Class 7

Preliminary results from Crawford Bomb burning rates showed a burning rate of 0950 cms (0374 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) for the 17 wt HMX formulation Time did not permit verifying this burning rate in motor tests prior to committing to the scale-up and loading of the 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors However indications -were that the 089-cms (035-ins) burning rate would be achieved in motor tests with 3 ballistic modifier in the formulation -- a cutback from the 4 in the other two HMX formulations In the interest of time a reduction in the ballistic modifier (a mixed burning rate catalyst) of 1 was made in the scale-up propellant batch from which the BATES motors were loaded Unfortunately this was too large a reduction in modifier and test results from firing the BATES motors showed a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) for the 17 wt HMX formulation (ANH-33)

The formulations of the five candidate alternate propellants and the modified PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 2-1 Table 2-2 lists the theoretical ballistic properties of the six propelshylants and also the HCi and A1203 (particulates) contents Table 2-3 summarizes the measured performance values as determined by BATES motor firings The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions with nozzle expansion ratios of 716 The measured sea level values were then corrected to vacuum values by the following equation

PeAe I vac ms =-I5 pact ms

D SYSTEM NO i MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE

The work statement of this Alternate Propqllant Program also called for modifying the current Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) while not changing the major ballistic properties such as I__ of the system This effort has been completed and the 081-cms (032-ins) burning rate met and demonstrated in motor firings The desired modification was accomplished by removing the iron oxide burningshyrate catalysts (Fe203 ) and adjusting the particle size blend of the oxidizer The burning-rate equation for this modified baseline is r = 00668 Pc0 228

A detailed discussion of the three candiate alternate propellant systems as well as the total program effort follows

2-3

Ingredients

Solids

AN

AP

HMX (Class E)

Al

Fe203

AD

CU-0202 P

Binder

HTPBe

PBANd

Table 2-1 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

TP-H1148a AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

86 88 88 88 88 88

-- 5900 5100 44o0 4300 4150

6960 1000 2000 1000 1000 1000

-- -- -- 1500 1700 1750

1600 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

040 b -- -- -- -shy

-- 200 -- 200 100 200

-- 200 200 200 200 200

-- 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

1400 -- -- -shy

aCurrent Shuttle baseline propellant also to be adjusted

bTo be adjusted

CCured with a diisocyanate (IPDI)

dCured with an epoxy (Der-331)

Table 2-2 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Parameter TP-H1148 AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Tf K 3471 2695 2845 2748 2765 2756

Te K

C ms (fts)

Isp0 N-skg (s)

2327

1371 (5155)

25723 (2623)

1563

1481 (4860)

24203 (2468)

1678

1568 (4949)

24624 (2511)

1570

1505 (4937)

24507 (2499)

1575

1513 (4965)

24634 (2512)

1571

1509 (4950)

24556 (2504)

U Is vac (a E 716)N-skg (s)

27135 (2767)

25684 (2619)

26115 (2663)

26007 (2652)

26144 (2666)

26066 (2658)

HC in exhaust 209 303 61 303 303 303

A1203 in exhaust 302 283 283 283 283 28

Table 2-3 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Ballistic Property

Program Goal

AN-25

Candidate Propellant Test Resultsa

AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

C ms (fts) - 1432 1460 1450 1431 1415

(4700) (4791) (4759) (4694) (4643)

C efficiency - 953 972 962 945 945

Isp vac at E = 716 N-skg (s)

_gt2403 (245)

22849 (2330)

24026 (2450)

23752 (2422)

23183 (2364)

23173 (2363)

Isp efficiency 888 923 912 887 8901

Burning rate cms at 690 Ncm2 (ins at 1000 psia)

gt_089 (035)

053 (021)

097 (0 38 )b

079 (031)

081 (032)

074 (029)

Pressure exponent n lt042 028 048 031 037 031

Hazard

classification 2 2 2 2 2 7 (marginal)

aTest data from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings at PC 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

bData point based on 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

SECTION III

PHASE I PROGRAM

A OBJECTIVE

The program objective of the Phase I program the results of which are documented in this report was to develop an alternate propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster motors which would eliminate or minimize the H1 in the exhaust from the motors

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS

The Phase I development effort was conducted within some very specific constraints These program constraints were

(1) Minimize the design impact on the present solid booster

(2) Eliminate or minimize Llt 3) the HC1 release from the booster motors during operation above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude

(3) Any candidate alternate propellant must confori to a Class 2 hazards classification

(4) The program was to be conducted within government as a contingency

(5) The payload schedule and cost impact of the Phase I effort on the Shuttle project were to be assessed concurrently

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS

Three basic pandidate propellant systems were selected for consideration in this development program These propellant systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

In addition to the above three completely new propellant systems a modification of the current baseline PBAN propellant was to be made This modification consisted of adjusting the burning rate of the PBAN propellant to a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) [The baseline PBAN propellant burning rate was approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)]

3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA

As has been stated the criteria for the Phase I program effort was established as a result of the Phase 0 feasibility study The scope of effort and propellant performance goals thus established were as follows

(1) Initiate the development of three basic candidate alternate propellant systems

(2) Modify the current Shuttle baseline PHAN propellant to meet

the new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins)

(3) The propellant performance goals were

(a) Burning rate = 689 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(b) Pressure exponent lt 042

(c) Delivered vacuum specific impulse at an expansion ratio of 716 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(d) Theburning rates of the candidate alternate propellants and the Shuttle baseline PBAN propellant should be matched at a pressure of 400 Ncm 2 (580 psia)

(e) HCI in the exhaust _ 3

(4) The development program was to include in addition to - the above

(a) Processing studies

(b) Physical property studies

(c) ropellant aging studies

(d) Propellant hazards classification testing

(e) Propellant performance testing

(f) Investigation of the compatibility between the alternate propellant and the current baseline PBAN propellant and between the alternate propellant and the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) insulation

E PROGRAM APPROACH

The following outline details the general approach taken in the investigation of the various aspects of this program

3-2

1 Theoretical Studies

() Maximize delivered specific impulse at 88 solids

(a) Aluminum content

(b) HMX content

(c) High-energy plasticizer content (TMETN)

2 Burning Rate Studies 089 cms (035 ins) Goal

(1) Particle size blend of oxidizer

(2) Investigate and compare catalyst type and concentration

(a) Fe203

(b) Ferrocene

(c) Milori blue

(d) CU-0202 P shy

(e) Inert plasticizer level (DOA)

(f) High-energy plasticizer (TMETN)

(g) HMX

(h) Zirconium powder

(i) Other

Burning rates to be determined via Crawford Bomb strand burning and 5 x 6 motor tests

3 Physical Property Studies

(1) Binder stoichiometry

(2) Plasticizer level and type

(a) Free plasticizer

(b) Internal plasticizer (chemically bonded)

(3) Degree of crosslinking

(4) Cure time and temperature

3-3

Evaluate properties Tensile strength

Elongation

Modulus

Hardness

Density

4 Processing Studies

(1) Process variables

(a) Mixer speeds

(b) Mix duration

(c) Ingredient addition sequence

(d) Other

5 Compatibility Studies

(1) PBAN propellant to alternate propellant bond

(a) As cured surfaces

(b) Machined surfaces

(2) Alternate propellant to insulation bond

6 Safety Hazard Tests

(I) Card gap

(2) Impact

(3) Auto-ignition shy

(4) Blast~ng cap

(5) Friction sensitivity

(6) Spark sensitivity

3-4

7 Aging Studies

(1) Propellant aging-physical properties

(a) Ambient temperature

(2) Propellant-propellant bond

(a) Ambient temperature

8 Motor Testing

(1) 5 x 6 motors - pressure only

(2) BATES motors - pressure and thrust

9 Shuttle Baseiine Propellant Modification

Adjust burning rate to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

F NOS PARTICIPATION

The Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head Maryland wLs funded by JPL to participate in certain aspects of the Alternate Propellant Program This funding of the NOS was a relatively low level of funding and designed to support the program through the investigation of certain very specific tasks The general areas of the NOS participation were

(1) Investigation of the solubility of the high-energy plasticizer TMETN in (a) R-45 HTPB polymer and (b) R-45 HTPB polymerDOA plasticizer

(2) Determine the limits of TMETN for a Class 2 propellant in an (a) all AN propellant system (b) ANAP system and (c) ANAPHMX system

(3) Investigation of the limits of HMX Ior a Class 2 inert binder propellent

(4) Hazards testing of candidate propellant formulations

(5) Investigation of HMX and AP particle size ef~eots and ballistic modifier effects on candidate propellant ballistics

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE

The Phase I effort of the Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program began April 1 1975 as an 18-month program The program schedule was later revised and lengthened to a 30-month program Much later in the program (April 1976) following several revisions to the program

3-5

schedule the planned scope of effort was reduced and the schedule cut to

conclude the program on June 30 1976 This reduction in scope and schedule

time became necessary due to a cut in the anticipated program funds

H DISCUSSION

Theoretical Studies

As has been discussed in the introduction to this report the Phase 0 feasibility study (Ref 1) results established the basis for

the Phase I effort Theoretical studies had been conducted during the Phase 0 work analyzing the effects of solids loading oxidizer ratios

binder composition etc on the thermoballistic properties of the proshy

pellant types under consideration Therefore at the start of the Phase I

program effort the guidelines for formulating the candidate alternate propellants to be developed were fairly well defined Consequently the

theoretical studies reported here involved only formulations with certain

constant parameters such as 88 total solids 15 aluminum and a binder based on plasticized HTPB

Table 3-1 gives summary tabulations of the primary thermoballistic properties of a number of candidate formulations containing AN AP and

HMX as oxidizers and the binder plasticized with the high-energy plasticizer

TMETN Iron oxide at the 1 level was included as a burning rate modifier The relevant Shuttle SRM baseline PBAN propellant properties are also shown in the table for reference As can be seen the formulation containing 25 HMX 10 AP and 25 TMETN plasticizer in the binder (12 HTPB binder) matches within 49 N-skg (05-s) specific impulse to that of the Shuttle baseline propellant That formulation however would be a Class 7 proshy

pellant and therefore could not be considered as a candidate

Table 3A2 shows the effects of varying the AP content the HMX conshy

tent and the type and content of the burning rate modifiers A combination

of ammonium dichromate (AD) and copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was selected

as the primary burning rate modifiers for this work Approximately two seconds of impulse difference is calculated for equal amounts of Fe203 and mixed AD and CU-0202 P (4 Fe203 versus 2 AD and 2 CU-0202 P) The calculations also show that for the 88 total solids system with 15 aluminum and 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) tpe theoretical optimum amount of HMX for maximum impulse is in the range of 17 to 175 The

experimental optimum HMX level for maximum delivered IsD however

appears to be something less than 17 wt This is eviaenced by the results from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests of propellants containing 150 170 and 175 HMX The measured ballistics of these formulations

are tabulated in Table 2-3 in the summary section of this report As will be seen in Table 2-3 the highest measured Isp with an HMX formulation

was with FormulationNumber ANH-12 which contains 150 HMX

These theoretical calculations referred to above were made using

a JPL computer program based on the minimization of free energy to

calculate both the equilibrium and frozen flow thermoballistic properties

of chemical compositions

3-6

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN

Formulationa Ballistics

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

AN AP HIX Al

TMETN in

Binder Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P T0 K C

ms (fts)

T (Sea Lcve Optimum) N-skg (s)

Vac 1 (c = 7)

N-skg (a)

Shuttle PBAN Baseline Propellantb(Density 17714 gcm 3 00640 lbin3) 3515 1578 (5176) 25752 (2626) 27136 k2767)

62 10 0 15 0 1 2825 1503 (4931) 24536 (2502) 25966 (2648)

62 10 0 15 10 1 2902 1511 (4956) 24674 (2516) 26095 (2661)

62 10 0 15 20 1 2977 1518 (4980) 24791 (2528) 26213 (2673)

62 10 0 15 25 1 2982 1521 (4991) 24850 (2534) 26272 (2679)

62 0 10 15 20 1 2910 1526 (5005) 24870 (2536) 26321 (2684)

52 0 20 15 20 1 2973 1546 (5072) 25174 (2567) 26645 (2717)

47 0 25 15 20 1 3005 1557 (5108) 25321 (2582) 26900 (2743)

62 0 10 15 25 1 2916 1529 (5016) 24929 (2542) 26380 (2690)

52 0 20 15 25 1 2978 1550 (5084) 25233 (257 ) 26704 (2723)

47 0 25 15 25 1 3010 1561 (5120) 25380 (2588) 26860 (2739)

52 10 10 15 10 1 2964 1532 (5028) 24968 (2546) 26419 (2694)

42 10 20 15 10 1 3027 1554 (5100) 25272 (2577) 26753 (2728)

37 10 25 15 10 1 3658 1565 (5136) 25419 (2592) 26909 (2744)

52 10 10 15 20 1 3039 1540 (5052) 25095 (2559) 26519 (2706)

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN (Continuation 1)

Formulationa Ballistics -

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier TMETN Is (Sea Vac L

in C Level Optimum) (E = 7 AN AP HMX Al Binder Fe203 AD CU-0202 P Tc K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

42 10 20 15 20 1 3102 1562 (5124) 25399 (2590) 26870 (2740)

37 10 25 15 20 1 3134 1573 (5160) 25546 (2605) 27037 (2757)

52 10 10 15 25 1 3044 1543 (5063) 25154 (2565) 26596 (2712)

42 10 20 15 25 1 3107 1565 (5135) 25448 (2595) 26929 (2746)

37 10 25 15 25 1 3138 1576 (5171) 25595 (2610) 27086 (2762)

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

bThe Shuttle baseline propellant has 16 Al 86$ total solids

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN

Formulation ballistics

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids)

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Pc = 690 Ncm

2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Moaifier

DensitygcM3

(lbin3 ) AN AP HMX Al

PropellantFormulation

No Fe2 0q AD CU-0202 P To K

C

Ms (fts)

Is (SeaLevel Optimum)

N-skg (s)

Vac ISp(E 7)

N-skg (s)

16634 (00601) 62 10 - 15 1 2728 1500 (4920) 24468 (2495) 25950 (2647)

0 16717 (00604) 61 10 - 15 2 2716 1490 (4887) 24320 (2480) 25801 (2631)

16800 (00607) 56 15 - 15 2 2778 1497 (4913) 24438 (2492) 25929 (2644)

16911 (00611) 51 20 - 15 2 2839 1505 (4938) -24566 (2505) 26046 (2656)

16994 (00614) 46 25 - 15 2 2904 1512 (4962) 24674 (2516) 26164 (2668)

17105 (00618) 41 30 - 15 2 2969 1519 (4985) 24791 (252b) 26282 (2680)

17188 (00621) 36 35 - 15 2 3032 1526 (5007) 24899 (2539) 24390 (2691)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 4 2692 1469 (4820) 24016 (2449) 25478 (2598)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 (AN-25) - 2 2 2695 1481 (4860) 24203 (2468) 25684 (2619)

16745 (0n605) 51 20 - 15 - 2 2841 1513 (4965) 24693 (2518) 26194 (26741)

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 1)

Pl1si~sFormulitiona

Theoreticl Equilibrium Flow Calculations = Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant IS (Sea Vac I gcm3 Formulation C Love Optimum) (c = 7) (lbin 3 ) AN PP HmX Pi No Fe20q AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg ()

16911 (00611) 51 20 15 (AN-71) 2 2845 1508 (4949) 24624 (2511) 26115 (266-)

16828 (00608) 51 20 15 1 1 2841 1511 (4957) 24654 (2514) 26145 (2666)

17160 (00620) 44 10 15 15 4 2748 1492 (4895) 24320 (2480) 25811 (2632)

17216 (00622) 42 10 17 15 4 2756 1495 (4906) 24360 (2484) 25850 (263b)

- ) 415 10 175 15 4 2581 1500 (4921) 25850 (2636)

) 40 10 190 15 4 2794 1495 (4906) 257b2 (2629)

39 10 200 15 4 2776 1490 (4888) 25723 (2623)

17049 (00616) 44 10 15 15 (ANH-12) - 2 2 2748 1504 (4937) 24507 (2499) 2007 (2652)

17077 (00617) 42 10 17 15 2 2 2754 1508 (4947) 24546 (2503) 26056 (2657)

17049 (00616) 4 10 17 15 (ANH-33) 1 2 2765 1513 (4965) 24634 (2512) 26145 (2666)

L

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 2)

BallisticsFormulations

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant is (Sea Vac Is gcm3 Formulation C Level Optimum) M (ibin3 ) AN AP HMX Al No Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

16828 (00608) 44 10 17 15 - - 2779 1525 (5005) 24781 (2527) 26311 (2683)

16994 (00614) 44 10 17 15 - 2 2784 1518 (4981) 24723 (2521) 26243 (2676)

16911 (00611) 44 10 17 15 - 1 1 2778 1522 (4994) 24752 (2524) 26272 (2679)

17077 1509 (4950) 24556 (2504) 26066 (2658)(00617) 415 10 175 15 (ANH-18) - 2 2 2757

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

2 Exhaust Products

The exhaust compositions of the five candidate propellants listed in Table 2-I in the report summary and that of the Shuttle PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 3-3 The exhaust species are shown as weight percent of the total exhaust and the exhaust composition is that at the exit plane of the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 716 calculated as the equilibrium composition

3 Combustion and Burning Rate

Two problems which were anticipated and confirmed as problems early in the Phase 0 program were low combustion efficiency and low burning rates of the aluminized ammonium nitrate propellant These subjects are discussed individually in the sections covering the different propellant systems However a few brief general comments will be made here

It was demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by way of 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings that a few percent of AP was essential in the ammonium nitrate propellants in order to effect satisfactory combustion of aluminum An 88 solids 15 Al ammonium nitrate formulation containing no AP was test fired in several 227-kg (5-1b) test motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors In each case large amounts of aluminum slag remained in the motors after firing Molten aluminum could be seen being ejected through the nozzle during the test firings Greatly improved combustion resulted from incorporating 5 AP in the formulation The incorporation of 10 AP resulted in virtually zero slag remaining in the motor Therefore 10 AP was selected as a standard for this Alternate Propellant Program The three photographs of BATES motor tests (Figs 3-1 to 3-3 containing 0 5 and 10 AP respectively in the formulations) show rather dramatically the effect of AP on the combustion The glowing streams in the 0 and 5 AP firings (greatly reduced in the 5 AP test however) are produced by molten aluminum

A second technique investigated as a combustion improvement techshynique was the incorporation of zirconium metal powder into the propellant The basis for this idea was due to the fact that zirconium powder has a much lower ignition temperature than that of aluminum powder and has a relatively high heat of combustion The idea was to take advantage of this lower ignition temperature of zirconium powder to facilitate the ignition and burning of the aluminum by igniting and burning and thereby supplying sufficient added heat to the system to more effectively ignite and burn the aluminum This technique however did not demonstrate any real improvement in the measured performance but rather a decrease and was therefore not investigated beyond the initial BATES motor test firings

3-12

Table 3-3 Propellant Exhaust Comsition

Propellant PBAN AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Solids 86 88 88 88 88 88 AP 6960 10 20 10 10 10 HMX - - - 15 17 175

Tel K 2327 1563 1678 1570 1575 1571

MoI Wt of Products 2756 2309 2360 2285 2275 2281

Speciesa wt

AlCl 00094 - - - -AIC10 00086 - - - shy

-A1C12 00098 - - -

AICI3 00053 - - - shy-AlHO2 00012 - - -

Cl 02961 - 00007 - -

CO 232928 189953 191619 256367 264700 267944 39486 61302 58679 46105 44899 42773CO2

Cr203(L) - 10020 02090 10020 06050 10020 Cu - 00038 00184 00044 00044 00044 CuC(L) - 14543 11840 14513 14475 14513 CUM - 00891 04188 00901 00940 00901

-Fe 00134 - - -

FeC12 05998 00621 00621 00596 00583 00583 H 00191 00001 00002 00001 00001 00001 H2 18804 29663 27301 32744 32941 33221

aCl 209284 30346 60149 30357 30346 30357 HO 00321 - 00002 - -

H20 101499 154534 157204 95971 91721 86539 85862 221739 203436 225998 228954 226707N2

NH3 - 00905 00003 00005 00005 00005 NO 00018 05780 - - shy

0 00005 shy02 00003 - - shy

A1203(C) 302097 283418 283418 283418 283418 283418

aConcentrations less than 1 x I0-5 moles100 g exhaust are omitted

L = liquid C = crystalline

3-13

ft

iI

Figure 3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

Imm

Figure 3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5$ AP in ANAPA1HTPB

go

Figure 3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

A third technique investigated was that of using a chromate-coated aluminum powder in place of the standard aluminum powder This techniquealso failed to produce increased combustion efficiency of the aluminum in the propellant

Specific burning rate subjects are discussed in the discussions of the different propellant systems however some general comments will be made here As can be seen in Table 3-2 the proper selection of a burning rate catalyst must be based on more than burning-rate considerations when a rigorous effort is made to maximize specific impulse As can be seen a significant difference is calculated for the theoretical Isp between incorporating the different burning rate modifiers at the same concentration Also the modifier used can have a strong effect on the physical properties of the propellant

4 Physical Properties

This effect of specific ingredients on the physical properties of an ammonium nitrate system arises from the fact that chemical reactions other than the normal curing reactions between the prepolymer and the curing agent enter into the overall curing reactions In most compositepropellant systems the physical properties are determined largely -in addition to binder type and solids loading by the degree of crosslinkingand completeness of reactions with available cure site6 In the ammonium nitrate system however it appears that free protons produced in the system react with the double bond in the prepolymer (HTPH) backbone causing crosslinks at these sites Ammonium dichromate appears to contribute in a greater way to this crosslinking at the double bonds than some of the other burning-rate modifiers investigated On the other hand the AD subtracts less from the calculated Isp The formulating and development of an AN system therefore is complicated by these considerations The physical property problems are greatly complicated Nonconventional techniques must be found and employed in the physical property considerations in order to develop satisfactory control of adequate physical properties

5 High-Energy Plasticizer Studies

One of the approaches investigated on the program was use of high-energy plasticizers td achieve higher delivered specific impulse propellants A review of available nitrate ester plasticizers indicated that TMETN (111-trimethylolethane trinitrate) was the most promising candidate This selection was made on the basis of overall considerations of compatibility performance cost and availability Theoretical performance calculations on some typical propellant formulations with 20 wt TMETN are shown in Table 3-4

Propellant development work on this effort was done by NOS (NavalOrdnance Station Indian Head Md) Two basic formulations were inshyvestigated one with no ammonium perchlorate and one with 5 wt ammonium perchlorate A polyester (R-18) binder was selected and initial development work was done at the 82 wt solids level with 1200 wt TMETN Small

3-17

Table 3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations

Formulation 1-A

Ammonium nitrate 360 Aluminum 180 R-18 60 HMX 100 TMETN 200 Ammonium perchlorate 100

1000

Density gcm3 17300 (lbin3 ) (00625)

Flame temperature 34314 K (OF) (5723)

Vacuum specific 27115 impulse N-skg (s) (2765) E = 716

Pc 483 Ncm2

(700 psi)

Weight percent 278 HC1 in exhaust

1-B

310 180 60 100 200 150

1000

17411 (00629)

3481 (5806)

27155 (2769)

417

1-C 1-D

410 410 180 180 60 60 50 -

200 200 100 150

1000 1000

17217 17244 (00622) (00623)

3410 3430 (5678) (5714)

26988 26880 (2752) (2741)

278 416

3-18

mixes were made to check ingredient compatibility and propellant laboratorysafety properties Results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-5 along with the formulations These tests indicated that the ingredients were compatible and safety properties were adequate The two formulations were then scaled up into larger batches and card gap samples were loaded and tested Both formulations were uncastable so that the card gapsamples had to be hand packed The card gap test results are shown in Table 3-5 and suggest both formulations meet the card gap requirementsfor Class 2 propellant (lt 70 cards) However these results may be biased to give lower card gap sensitivity because of voids in the samples

Four additional formulations were then evaluated at the reduced solids level of 74 wt to improve propellant castability The polyester(R-18) binder system was used and TMETN level was held constant at 20 wt The variations made with these four formulations were variations in the levels of HMX AP and AN All the formulations were eastable and card gap samples were prepared and tested on each The details of the formulations and card gap test results are summarized in Table 3-6 General conclusion from this work was that for this propellant systemwith 20 wt TMETN a maximum level of 5 to 10 wt HMX can be used and meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

Work with the polyester (R-18) binder system was terminated and shifted to the HTPB (R-45) binder system when the early experimentalwork indicated that program goals would probably not be achieved with the polyester (R-18) Initial tests by NOS showed the solubility of TMETN (also referred to as MTN) in R-45 at 210 C (700F) was less than 1 wt They then conducted cosolubility studies with other plasticizersComplete details of these studies are shown in Appendix A Summary conclusions from this effort are as follows

(1) R-18 and adiponitrile are not soluble in R-45M

(2) DOA is more effective as a coplasticizer than TP90B and PPG-1225

(3) Maximum theoretical performance gains possible by replaceshyment of DOA with TMETN within solubility limits are about 176 N-skg (18-s) impulse and 0028 gcm 3 (O001 lbin 3 ) density

A decision was made to terminate further work with TMETN at this point in the program Primary reason for the decision was that the small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justifythe potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradation

6 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrates

An evaluation of available ammonium nitrate (AN) types was made to provide a basis for selection of the AN in development of the propellant formulations Ammonium nitrate is the major oxidizer used in all

3-19

Table 3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations with TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids)

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder TMETN Aluminum HMX Ammonium perchlorate Ammonium nitrate

Initial card gap tests

0 Cards 35 Cards 50 Cards

70 Cards

Laboratory safety tests

Impact mm (3 consecutive positive values 5-kg weight)

Sliding friction kg (ib) 24 ms (8 fts)

Electrostatic discharge- J

(5000 V)

NOS SCC-74-69 NOS SCC-74-074

600 600 1200 1200 1800 1800 2000 1000 - 500

4400 4900

10000 10000

-pos

pos pos pos neg neg

150 -125 150 200

gt-435 (gt_960) 435 ( 960) A35 (gt_960)

gt435 (gt960)

2125 125 gt125 L125

3-20

Table 3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids)

Formulation No NOS Mod I NOS Mod II NOS 1C NOS ID

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder -600 600 600 600 TMETN 2000 2000 2000 2000 Aluminum 1800 1800 1800 1800 HMX 2000 2000 -500 Ammonium perchlorate - 500 1000 1500 Ammonium nitrate 3600 3100 4100 4100

10000 10000 IbO00 10000

No 8 Blasting Cap neg neg -

Test

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards -shy pos 40 Cards pos neg

(42 cards) 50 Cards pos pos neg 60 Cards neg 65 Cards pos 70 Cards pos neg neg 75 Cards pos -

80 Cards pos - -

85 Cards - Ipos and I neg - -

90 Cards 2 pos - -

100 Cards pos I pos and I neg - -

112 Cards pos - -

120 Cards pos neg - -

121 Cards 1 pos and 2 neg - -

123 Cards neg - - -

125 Cards neg 150 Cards neg

3-21

three of the basic alternate propellants ANAPAlHTPB ANHMXAlHTBP

and ANHMXAPAlHTPB

Some of the problems associated with making propellants with AN are

(1) Low true density of AN (1725 gcm3 ) which limits solids loading for processable propellants

(2) Large size and hollowness of unground as-received prills

(3) Hygroscopicity of AN and particle agglomeration

(4) Slow burning rates

(5) Low specific impulse

(6) Volumetric changes with crystal phase changes

The following three types of AN were selected for evaluation

(1) Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated

(2) U S Agri-Chemicals industrial with anti-caking agent

(3) Monsanto industrial E-2 phase stabilized

These three were selected because they are generally representative of what is currently available from industry Table 3-7 compares the as-received properties of the three AN types Table 3-8 compares some of the processing characteristics of the three AN types

The Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated has the advantage of having no additives that generally tend to reduce propellant specific impulse However this AN has a soft prill that breaks readily and is very hygroscopic Both the unground and ground materials agglomerate severely even in controlled environments These difficulties in controlling particle-size distribution with this type AN pose real problems in achieving and reproducing maximum specific impulse and burning rate in processable propellants Cost of this type AN is higher than the other two types because it is a specialty product

The U S Agri-Chemicals industrial AN has a 043 to 077 wt coating of anticaking agent on the prills The coating consists of 90 talc and 10 Petro-Ag It keeps the material free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture In addition it makes a harder prill which does not break readily Good control of particle-size distribution is possible with this type of AN Consequently processable propellants are achievable with reproducible burning rates and delivered specific impulse

3-22

Oc Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received PropertiesTable 3-7

Vendor

ltC7

Type

Appearance

Total nitrogen

Approx assay

Moisture (when manufactured)

to Additive

Screen size (US Sieve Series)

Loose bulk density gcm3

3)(lbft

Prill Density gcm3

Approx cost kg (lb)

aphase stabilized

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticakang Agent)

White prills

None

254 (115)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

industrial (Coated with Anticaking Agent)

White free-flowing spheres

(prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

025 wt min

043 to 077 wt $ coating bagent

00 wt max retained on No 6 50 wt $ max through No 6 and on a No 8 940 wt max through No 6 and on No 20 10 wt max through No 20

154

154 (7 0 )d

Monsanto Agricultural Products Co

inoustrial E-2

Pearly white free-flowing

spheres (prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

05 wt min

04 to 06 wt E-2 additive c

10 wt max retained on No 6 100 wt through No 14

09611 (60)

161

a157 (71

b90 tale and 10 petroleum agent eMgo according to US Patent 3030179

taxesdBulk costs - carload quantities typically 54431-kg (60-ton) minimum Does not include freight or

Table 3-8

Property

Handling characteristics to unground

Particle size after tumble drying unground

Grinding characteristics particle size after coarse grinding in Raymond hammer mill with 4000-rpm hammer speed 160-rpm feed speed 032-cm (18-in) screen

Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticaking Agent)

Soft prill breaks easily Very hygroscopic and agglom-

erates severely

104 to 1000 pm

480 pm (avg)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

Industrial (Coated with Anttcaking Agent)

Fairly hard prill does not break readily Remains free

flowing with reasonable pro-tection from moisture

840 to 3360 pm

2200 pm (avg)

140 um (avg)

Monsanto AgraculLural Products Co

Industrial E-2 (Phase-Stabilized)

Very hard and dense prill does not bread readily

Remains free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture

1410 to 3360 pm

2000 pm (avg)

2bO pm (avg)

The Monsanto industrial E-2 phase-stabilized AN has 04-to 06 wt E-2 additive This material is MgO which pbase stabilizes-the ammonium nitrate according to U S Patent 3030179 (assigned to Monsanto Company) Figure 3-4 shows the specific volume of Monsanto E-2 AN and of AN that has not been phase stabilized versus temperature The solid line is for the Monsanto E-2 AN and the dotted line is for the AN that has not been phase stabilized Note that the volumetric changes associated with Phase III have been eliminated in the phase-stabilizedMonsanto E-2 AN Comparing Monsanto E-2 AN with the other types inTable 3-7 and 3-8 the following conclusions can be made

(1) Monsanto E-2 AN has a higher prill density than U S Agri-Chemicals AN (161 gcm3 versus 154 gcm3 )

(2) Because Monsanto E-2 is a very hard anddense prill normal handling and tumble drying does not significantly break prills Particle-size distribution remains in the range of 1410 to 3360 pm with an average size of about 2000 m

(3) Coarse grinds of Monsanto E-2 AN have an average particle size of about 280 pm which is in the size range (200 to 400 pm) for better fit with the other solids

(4) The Monsanto E-2 AN remains free flowing in both the ungroundand ground states with reasonable protection from moisture

(5) Cost of the Monsanto E-2 AN in large bulk quantities is 157 1kg (71 [lb) which is comparable to other AN types which are not phase stabilized

ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant batches have been made with all three of the AN types discussed above In general results were as follows

(1) The propellant made with Monsanto E-2 AN had lower endshyof-mix viscosities and longer casting lives than the proshypellant made with the other two types of AN

(2) Burning rates with the Monsanto E-2 AN were either comparable or slightly faster

Based on these results Monsanto E-2 AN was selected as the preferred AN type for the following reasons

(1) It is easily processed with good particle-size control It remains free flowing in both the unground and ground states with reasonable protection from moisture The prill does not readily break with normal handling or tumble drying

(2) It has typically a 5 higher prill density This lowers propellant volumetric solids loading which improves castability

(3) This AN can be ground to more optimum size distributions for improved solids packing

3-25

065

063 063

1

- BOWDEN

MONSANTO E-2 -

I

PHASE ILr

E

uS 061 IIshy

0 -

CU 059

057

055

-100 -50

Figure 3-4

0 50 100

TEMPERATURE degC

Specific Volume of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature

150 200

3-26

(4) It does not have a talc anticaking coating which appears

to accelerate propellant viscosity buildup

(5) Phase stabilization minimizes volumetric changes with varying

temperature due to phase changes

(6) This AN gives comparable or slightly faster burning rates

(7) It has a comparable price to other AN types in large bulk

quantities

7 ANAPAlHTPB ( 3 Wt HC1 Exhaust)

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished

on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraint of lt 3 wt HCl in the propellant exhaust

This constraint is met by limiting the AP level in the formulation to

( 10 wt

a Burning Rate Studies Initial burning rate studies were

made to evaluate different ballistic modifier types and levels with

the basic 88 wt solids ANAPAlHTPB propellant The selection of

the ballistic modifiers was limited to those that were

(1) Commercially available

(2) Proved successful for use within rubber base propellants

(3) Non-migrating

(4) Reasonably priced

selectedAmmonium dichromate (NH4)2Cr207 at the 2 wt level was

as the primary ballistic modifier for the following reasons

(1) AN is the major oxidizer

(2) AD has been used successfully for years with AN propellants

Other ballistic modifiers were used in conjunction with the AD to enhance

burning rate and attempt to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms

(035 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) Table 3-9 shows the formulations evaluatedand the cured strand burning rates obtained

The propellant formulations were mixed as small (1000 to 1500 g)

batches using a 38-liter (1-gal) vertical Bramley mixer The propellant

was cast into RAM-225 released molds that formed individual propellant

strands and was then cured After cure the propellant strands were tested

in a conventional Crawford Bomb strand burner A subsequent study

discussed in the section on ANUNXAPAlHTPB propellant showed that

3-27

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Formulation wt Crawford Bomb Data

rb cms (ins)

Batch No

Total Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m)

Other Ballistic Modifier

Oxidizer Blend CoarseFine

At 345 Nem2

and 210C (500 psia and 700F)

At 690 Ncm2

and 210C (1000 psia and 700 F)

o

30

31 55

88 6o

59 57

10 15 2

2 2

Fe20Q

Fe203 Fe203

1

2 4

4555

442558 425575

0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0279 (0110)

0538 (0212)

0475 (0187)

0432 (0170)

32

33

49

34

60

59

57

59

2

2

2

2

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite Fe203

1

2

4

1 1

4555

442558

425575

442558

0462 (0182)

0564 (0222)

0472 (0186)

0493 (0194)

0627 (0247)

0759 (0299)

0671 (0264)

0737 (0290)estimated

50 57 2 Copper Chromite Fe203

2 2 425575 0511 (0201) 0699 (0275)

54 57 2 Copper Chromite FeF 3 (unground)

2 2 425575 0485 (0191) 0648 (0255)

35 6o 2 Milor Blue 1 4555 0399 (0157) 0625 (0246)

56 57 2 Milori Blue 4 425575 0371 (0146) 0528 (0208)

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

a Crawford Bomb Data

Formulation wt rb cms (ins)

At 3115 Ncm2 At 690 Ncm2

0 0and 21 C and 21 C

Batch Total Other Ballistic Oxidizer Blend (500 psia (1000 psia 0

No Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m) Modifier CoarseFine and 70 F) and 700 F)

W 36 88 60 10 15 2 Ferrocene 1 4555 0381 (0150) 0569 (0224)N)

42 60 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 1 4555 0429 (0169) 0594 (0234)

53 57 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 4 425575 0356 (0140) 0490 (0193)

41 60 2 Iron phthshyalocyanine 1$ 4555 0358 (0141) 0490 (0193)

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

the strand burning rates may have been biased to give faster rates by the RAM-225 release agent However the burning rate trends and ranking of the ballistic modifiers do not appear to be biased by the RAM-225

Figure 3-5 shows strand burning rates plotted at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) versus the second ballistic modifier level for the ballistic modifier systems evaluated General conclusions from the study were as follows

(1) The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) and 2 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) gave the fastest burn rate

(2) Increasing the combined level of burning rate modifiers to greater than 4wt of theformulatibn decreased the burn rate

Although the attritor-ground (I m) ferric fluoride (FeF 3) gave a faster burning rate than CU-0202 P at the 1 wt second ballistic modifier level FeF 3 was not selected because it would have contributed HF in the propellant exhaust A preliminary selection of the ballistic modifier system was made for subsequent work The system selected was 2 wt $ ground AD and 2 wt as-received CU-0202 P

Achievement of the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2

(035 ins at 1000 psia) had not been accomplished by simple manipulation of the ballistic modifier type and level Consequently propellant developshyment effort was continued toward this goal along the following approaches

(1) Finer particle size ballisticmodifiers

(2) Finer particle size AN

(3) Greater level of fine AN

(4) Finer particle size AP

(5) Use of potassium perchlorate

Two approaches were evaluated to reduce ballistic modifier particle sizes to sizes smaller than those achievable with a hammer mill They were dry ball milling and attritor grinding The dry ball milling approach was unsuccessful with AD and CU-0202 P because they packed into a hard cake Attritor grinding of AP and FeF 3 to particle sizes smaller than 1 m has been successfully demonstrated within the solid propellant industry This method uses an attritor mill to grind material suspended in Freon between zircoa beads Attritor grinds were successfully made with AD and CU-0202 P and the particle-size reductions accomplished are summarized in Table 3-10

3-30

1016 I1

STRAND BURN RATES POSSIBLY BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

040

EU

04 E

z 0762

FIRST BALLISTIC MODIFIER 200 wt GROUND AD

FeF3 GROUND TO I

030

K c

0 10

uIX FeF 3 (UNGROUND)

Z

0 58

IRONO PHTHALOCYANINE

MILORI BLUE

x FERROCENEFe 20 3

020 zS

ln

0254 I I 0 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SECOND BALLISTIC MODIFIER LEVEL wt

Figure 3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic

Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-31

Table 3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P

Screen Analysis Micromerograph Material 50 wt pt 50 wt pt

Particle Size pm Particle Size pm

AD

As received =575

Attritor ground (21 h) - 44

CU-0202 P

As received 21

Attritor ground (21 h) shy 17

Small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of the smaller ballistic modifier particle sizes on strand burning rates Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-11 General conclusions from this study are as follows

(1) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 1 wt FeF 3 fine ground AN and 9-gm AP reducing the FeF 3 particle size from a coarse as-received to attritor-ground 1 pm material increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2

(1000 psia) from 0594 to 0668 cms (0234 to 0263 ins) (-12)

(2) In an IDP-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P coarse ground AN and 63- AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm did not significantly change strand burning rate

(3) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (0208 to 0219 ins) ( 5)

(4) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (2208 to 0218 ins) (5)

3-32

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-l05 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized 40 IDP

plasticized

1200

-

1200

-

-

1200

-

1200

1200

-

1200

-

1200

-

Aluminum MD 105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground

72 pm Attritor ground

44 gm

200

-

200

-

200 -

200bull

200

-

200

-

-

200

Ferric fluoride As received Attritor ground 1 pm

100 -

-100

- -

- -

-

-

Copper chromite As received 21 pm

Attritor ground 17 pm

- 200

-

200

-

200

-

-

200

200

-

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine Ground Gulf

Oil Fine ground

Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

3150 -

2850

-

3150 -

2850

-

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 1000 9 [Lm

FEM ground 63 pm -

1000

-

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000 1000

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-33

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-105 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 690 Ncm 2 0429 0465 0422 0419 0424 0439 0437 (100 psia) (0169)(0183)(0166) (0165) (0167) (0173) (0172)

At 345 Ncm 2 0594 0668 0467 0475 0528 0556 0554 (500 psia) (0234)(0263)(0184) (0187) (0208) (0219) (0218)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 047 053 014 018 030 033 033

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

In summary reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burning rates for the selected ballistic modifier system

As discussed earlier particle-size control of the unground Gulf Oil AN was a problem because of breakage of the prills during drying and handling A partial approach to this problem was to screen the unground Gulf Oil AN into a selected size range after drying and handling Smallshyscale propellant batches (1000 to 1500 g) were made using Gulf Oil AN and strand burn rate tests were performed on these batches to evaluate

(1) The effect of screened +60 to -32 mesh (250 to 570 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(2) The effect of screened +32 to -16mesh (570 to 1190 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(3) The effect of varying the fraction of AN as fine ground on castability and burn rate

The fine ground AN was ground using a hammer mill with the following settings

9600 rpm hammer speed 80 rpm feed speed

0033-cm (0013-in) screen

3-34

Fisher sub-sieve average particle size for this material was typically 20 pm The fraction of AN as fine ground was limited to less than 55wt to keep propellant processable in the small scale batches (Larger batches typically have better castability) Table 3-12 and Fig 3-6 summarize test results General conclusions from these results were

(1) All batches had poor relative castability

(2) Using unscreened unground Gulf Oil AN (broad particle-size distribution with a significant portion of fines) and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 483 to 542 wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) from 0505 to 0577 cms (0199 to 0227 ins)

(3) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0462 cms (0199 to 0182 ins)

(4) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 300 to 483

wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (100 psia) from 0419 to Q462cms (0165 to 0182 ins)

(5) Changing the coarse fraction from screened +60 to -32 AN to screened +32 to -16 mesh AN reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0404 cms (0165 to 0159 in s)

Changing the type of ammonium nitrate type from Gulf Oil to Monsanto phase stabilized AN eliminated the problem of prill breakage but did not improve castability even with IDP plasticizer as shown by Batch SB-101 in Table 3-12 The slower burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponent with Batch SB-101 compared to Batch SB-64 is due to use of IDP as the plasticizer A small-scale propellant batch SB-102 was made with a coarse ground Monsanto AN to evaluate the effect of this material on castability and burn rate The coarse ground was made using a hammer mill with the following setting 4000 rpm hammer speed 160 rpm feed speed and 032-cm (18-in) screen

Screen analysis indicated this coarse ground AN had an average particle size of approximately 280 pm Propellant castability using this material was excellent but strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was reduced from 0485 to 0442 cms (0191 to 0174 ins) 9 The burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) was not achieved by varying AN type AN particle size or fraction of AN fine ground

The effect of replacing hammer mill ground AP by fluid energy mill ground AP on propellant burning rate was evaluated in a series of five small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) batches Three batches were made using DOA plasticizer and fine ground Gulf AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 55 pm Two batches were made using IDP plasticizer and coarse ground Monsanto AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm Results of this study are shown in Table 3-13 and Fig 3-7

3-35

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized40 IDP

plasticized

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 to 72 gm

Copper chromite as received

im21

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Screened (+60-32) Gulf Oil

Screened (+32 to -16 mesh) Gulf Oil

Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil

Fine ground Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground9 gm

Fraction of AN fine ground (wt )

Relative Castability

SB-64

AN-25

1200

-

200

200

1500

3050

-

-

2850

-

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-75

AN-63

1200

-

200

200

1500

2700

-

--

3200

-

1000

542

Poor

SB-48

AN-40

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

4130

--

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-48A

AN-40A

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

-

4130 -

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-61

AN-53

1200

200

200

1500

-

3050

-

2850

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-101 SB-102

AN-65 AN-65A

- -

1200 1200

200 200

200 200

1500 1500

- -

- -

- -3050 3050

- -

2850 -

2850

1000 1000

483 -

Poor Excellent

3-36

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-64 SB-75 SB-48 SB-48A SB-61 SB-101 SB-102

Formulation No AN-25 AN-63 AN-40 AN-40A AN-53 AN-65 AN-65A

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm 2 0366 0414 0277 0284 0338 0419 0351 (500 psia) (0144)(0163)(0109) (0112) (0133) (0165) (0138)

At 690 Ncm2 0505 0577 0419 0404 0462 0485 0442 (1000 psia) (0199)(0227)(0165) (0159) (0182) (0191) (0174)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 047 049 060() 050 045 022 032

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

These results indicated the following

(1) Using DOA plasticizer fine ground Gulf AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 55 gm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0508 to 0635 cms (0200 to 0250 ins)

(2) Using IDP plasticizer coarse ground Monsanto AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0442 to 0467 cms (0174 to 0184 ins)

(3) Use of the finer (55 to 63 pm) fluid energy ground AP did not increase pressure exponent

Maximum burning rate achieved using fluid energy ground AP was 0635 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0250 ins at 1000 psia) compared to the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

3-37

Table 3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-62 SB-64 SB-66 SB-102 SB-103

Formulation No AN-25 AN-25 AN-56 AN-65A- AN-65B

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 wt DOA plasticized 40 wt IDP plasticized

1200 -

1200 -

1200 -

-

1200 1200

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as

received 21 [m 200 200 200 200 200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 -1500

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil Coarse ground Monsanto

3050

-2850 -

3050

-2850

-

3050

-2850

-

3050 -

2850

3050 -

2850

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 9 1m Fluid energy ground 55 pm Fluid energy ground 63 pm

1000 --

1000 -

-

1000 -

1000 -

-

-

1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Ratesa

cms at 251C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)- 0368 (0145)

0366 (0144)

0457 (0180)

0351 (0138)

0422 (o166)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0508 (0200)

0505 (0199)

064 (025)

0442 (0174)

0467 (0184)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 049 049 048 032 014

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-38

0762 I I I 1 030 11nSTRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY -Z o BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

0E E

COARSE FRACTION HADBROAD SIZE DISTRIBUTION a Z o

WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTION OFFINES

oC 10I0 Ishy

lt 0508 020 w

zz Z 0-COARSE FRACTION WAS 04 n SCREENED TO OBTAIN

NARROW COARSE DISTRIBUTION (+60 -32

o Z

I-MESH) WITH NO FINES

-shy

0254 20

I 30

I 40

I 50

I 60

010 70

FRACTION QF FINE GROUND AN wt

Figure 3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (Gulf AN)

3-39

1270 050

E

U

o 0

I-

C

BURN RATE GOAL o

I-

D Co0

0762 FINE

DOA

GROUND AN AND

PLASTICIZER

030

0D 0o z

V) 0508-

COARSE GROUND AN AND IDP PLASTICIZER 020

0381 I I I I I 015 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) jm

Figure 3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size

ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-40

A small-scale propellant batch SB-65 was made to determine whether the burning rate could be increased significantly by replacing the ground AP by ground potassium perchlorate (KP) Strand burn rate tests were made on this batch and compared to the reference Batch SB-64 as shown in Table 3-14 Strand burning rate at690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was increased from 0505 to 0531 cms (0199 to 0209 ins) 5 but pressure exponent increased from 047 to 065 This approach was dropped because of the minimal increase in burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and the significant increase in pressure exponent

b Combustion Problems One of the problems in using ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer in solid propellants is the incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered specific impulse This problem was studied in the Phase 0 effort and partially resolved by modifying the formulations to include 10 wt AP Other approaches considered on this program to improve aluminum combustion and performance were

(1) Use of aluminum and zirconium mixtures Zirconium has

lower ignition temperature than aluminum

(2) Use of dichromate-coated aluminum powder

(3) Use of aluminummagnesium alloys

(4) Use of plasticizers containing more oxidizer to obtain a more favorable oxidizerfuel ratio

Some increases in propellant burning were also considered possible with several of these approaches Because of limited time and fundsonly the first two approaches were evaluated to any extent with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant Results of these studies are covered in the following discussion

A small-scale propellant batch SB-104 was made using the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum to evaluate the effect on strand burning rates Results of these strand burning rate tests are compared to strand burning rates of reference Batch SB-103 in Table 3-15 The replacement of the uncoated MD-05 aluminum by the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0467 to 0424 cms (0184 to 0167 ins) 9 No motors were loaded and tested to evaluate the effects of this dichromate-coated aluminum on delivered specific impulse

3-41

Table 3-14 Evaluation of Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-64 SB-65

Formulation No AN-25 AN-55

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 gim 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 [Lm 1000 -

Potassium perchlorate hammer mill ground 30 gm - 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0366 (0144) 0340 (013

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0505 (0199) 0531 (0209

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 049 065

Six small-scale propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of AlZr mixtures on propellant castability and strand burning rates Three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt Fe203 The other three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P Zirconium powder level was varied at 0 250 and 500 wt of propellant formulation (0 16 and 13 replacement of Al) Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-16 and Fig 3-8 General conclusions were as follows

3-42

Table 3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-103 SB-104

Formulation No AN-65B AN-65C

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 (uncoated) 1500 -

Aluminum H-5 (dichromate coated) - 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250C

(ins at 771F)

At 345 Ncm 2 (500 psia) 0422 (0166) 0366 (0144)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0467 (0184) 0424 (0167)

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 014 022

3-43

1016 1 1 1 1 040

-rl STRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY E BIASED BY RAM-225 (3 MOLD RELEASE

E

0762 030 0

CD 00 0 0 I---shy

100 CU-0202 P + 200 AD

z 0508 - 020 D

z z

- 100 Fe20 3 + 200 AD

0254 I I I -010 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ZIRCONIUM (REPLACING ALUMINUM) wt

Figure 3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium

ANAPA1HTPB Propellants

3-44

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Ingredients wt

iHTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1250 1000 1500 1250 1000

Zirconium powder --- 250 500 250 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 [m 200 200 200 200 200 200

Fe203 as received 100 100 100

Copper chromite as received --- - --- 100 100 100

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 gm 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)e

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0272 (0107)

0462 (0182)

0376 (0148)

0307 (0121)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0538 (0212)

0452 (0178)

0399 (0157)

0627 (0247)

0546 (0215)

0455 (0179)

3-45

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 390 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 052 058 058 044 054 057

apoor relative castability bUncastable

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

(1) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to make the propellant less castable on the 38-liter (1-gal) batch scale

(2) The 200 wt AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P ballistic modifier system gave faster burning rates than the 200 wt AD and 100 wt Fe203 ballistic modifier system

(3) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to reduce propellant strand burning rate and increase strand pressure exponent

Based on this study and the study of ballistic modifiers a formulation using 500 wt zirconium was selected for s6ale-up and evaluation in BATES motor firings Results of these additional tests are discussed in Section III-H-d and III-H-e

c Proc6ssing Studies Limited funds and time did not allow for any systematic study of processing variables to optimize processing conditions However processing methods and conditions were optimizedbased on experience Some of the specific approaches used for propellant mixing were

(1) Careful selections of order and manner of ingredient addition to disperse and wet solids

(2) Elevated temperatures prior to curative addition to wet and disperse solids and reduced temperatures after curative addition to minimize cure reactions

3-46

(3) Extended vacuum mix times prior to curative addition to

wet and disperse fine- solids

(4) Controlled moisture of ingredients and of the process

The effects of AN particle sizes and fraction of AN fine ground on propellant castability were discussed in conjunction with the burning rate studies

Antioxidants are commonly used with the R-45 HTPB binder to improve propellant pot life and aging stability The combination of UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-p-phenylene diamine) and DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone) appears to give synergistic effects and is very effective in extending pot life Protech 2002 (UTC proprietary metalshydeactivating antioxidant) and others of the Protech series have the additional advantage of being metal scavengers They tie up the transishytion metals that catalyze radical oxidations Four small-scale propellant batches were made initially to evaluate these pot-life extenders Table 3-17 summarizes results of this initial study The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH gave some improvement in propellant castability with no significant effect on propellant burning rate No improvement in propellant castability was observed with use of the Protech 2002 The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH was selected as the pot-life extender system to be used for additional evaluation

DOA was chosen initially as the plasticizer for use with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant It is one of the most commonly used plasticizers and its low cost is an advantage IDP has a lower viscosity and freezing point than DOA but is more costly than DOA Six smallshyscale propellant batches were made and tested to compare the two plasticizers DOA and IDP under the following three conditions

(1) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level without pot-life extenders

(2) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

(3) At the 50 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

Results of the study are summarized in Table 3-18 General conclusions from the study were

(1) The IDP consistently gave better castability than the DOA

(2) Use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH improved castability with both of the plasticizers DOA and IDP

(3) No major improvement in castability was observed by increasing the plasticizer in binder level from 40 to 50 wt

3-47

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1192 1177 1185

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl-hydroquinone) - 00 004 -

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshyphenylene diamine) -

Protech 2002 (UTC

proprietary antioxidant) -

004

-

004

015

-

015

Aluminum MD-105 1000 1000 1000 1000

Zirconium powder 500 500 500 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63ttxz 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm 1000 1000 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-48

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at

0770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 0323 0295 0282 0269 (500 psia) (0127) (0116) (0111) (0106)

At 690 Ncm 2 0475 0467 0483 0460 (1000 psia) (0187) (0184) (0190) (0181)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 057 066 078 078

aUncastable bpoor castability

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

The effect of plasticizer type on propellant burning rate was not conshyclusively determined from this study Two out of the three cases indicated that the IDP gave slower strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) To resolve this question two additional propellant batches SB-100 and SB-101 were made where the strand burn rate test results could not possibly be biased by the RAM-225 release agent The batches were formulated to have 40 wt plasticizer in binder and to use the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH Results of tests on these two batches are shown in Table 3-19 These results indicated the change from DOA to IDP plasticizer reduced the strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0544 to 0485 cms (0214 to 0191 ins) ( 11)

Based on results of these processing studies the following propellant selections were made for additional evaluation in scale-up batches and motor tests

(1) DOA plasticizer

(2) 40 wt plasticizer in binder level

(3) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH each at the 004 wt level

3-49

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

Formulation No AN-57a AN-58b AN-25 0 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 592 592 720 720 712 712

DTBH (25 dishytertiary butyl hydroquinone) 004 004 - - 004 004

UOP-36 (N-phenylshyN-cyclohexylshyP-phenylene diamine) 004 004 - - 004 004

DOA 600 - 480 - 480 -

IDP - 600 - 480- - 480

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 Am 200 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 [Lm 200 200 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate screened ungroundGulf Oil +60 -32 mesh 2700 2700 - - - -

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil - - 3050 3050 2700 2700

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 3200 3200 2850 2850 3200 3200

Ammonium perchloshyrate hammer mill ground 9 jim - - 1000 1000 1000 1000

3-50

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ammonium perabloshyrate fluid energy mill ground 55 pm

Total

Strand Burning Ratesd cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2 (500 to 1000 psia)

aGood castability

SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

AN-57a AN-58b AN-250 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

1000 1000 -

10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

0376 0371 0366 0478 0414 0353 (0148) (0146) (0144) (0188) (0163) (0139)

0572 0533 0505 0658 0577 0500 (0225) (0210) (0199) (0259) (0227) (0197)

059 053 047 046 049 048

bExcellent castability 0Poor castability dpossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-51

Table 3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-100

-AN-25a

SB-101

AN-65b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 712 712

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshy

P-phenylene diamine)

004

04

004

004

DOA 48o -

IDP - 480

Aluminum IAD-I05 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 72 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm

Total 1000

10000 1000

10000

Strand burning rates cms at 25degC (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

0406 (0160)

0544 (0214)

0419 (0165)

0485 (0191)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

041 022

apoor castability bFair castability

3-52

Results of these additional tests are discussed in sections on scale-up and ballistic evaluation

d Scale-up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Two propellant formulations were selected for evaluation in scale-up batches [946 liters 104 to 113 kg (25gal 230 to 250 lb)] and motor tests Formulation AN-25 was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum and 4 wt ballistic modifier Formulation AN-59 was identical except one-third of the aluminum (5 wt of the propellant formulation) was replaced by zirconium powder Details of the formulations are shownin Table 3-20 Both formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section e The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples from each batch

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rate

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-20 General conclusions from these tests were as follows

(1) The end-of-mix viscosities and pot lives on both batches were excellent There was no degradation of castability with zirconium as suggested by the small-scale batch studies

(2) Strand burning rates were slightly faster at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) for the formulation with zirconium The smallshyscale studies had suggested slower burning rates for formulashytions containing zirconium

(3) Both formulations had burning rateswhich were well below the burning rate goal 0478 and 0513 cms at 690 Ncm2

(0188 and 0202 ins at 1000 psia) versus goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(4) Card gap tests on both formulations were negative at 0 cards and therefore met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Density of the propellant containing zirconium was slightly higher than the propellant containing just aluminum as expected

3-53

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

Propellant Type Batch Number Formulation Number Batch Size kg (ib)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized)

UOP-36

DTBH

Ammonium dichromate grodnd 63 pm

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Aluminum powder

Zirconium powder

Ammonium nitrate Gulf Oil unground Gulf Oil fine ground

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 pm

Total

Brookfield apparent viscosities kP at 0C (OF)

Time after curative addition

07 h (end-of-mix) 13 h 34 h

Strand burning rates at 251C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) At 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

ANAPAlHTPB SB-73 AN-25

113 (250)

1192

004

004

200

200

1500

-

3050 2850

1000

10000

60 at 55 (130) 73 at 57 (135) 95 at 55 (130)

0257 (0101) 0373 (0147) 0462 (0182) 0478 (0188)

3-54

ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74 AN-59

104 (230)

1192

004

004

200

200

1000

500

3050 2850

1000

10000

41 at-57 (-135) 50 at-57 (-135)

0224 (0088) 0353 (0139) 0437 (0172) 0513 (0292)

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations (Continuation 1)

Propellant Type ANAPAlHTPB ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74Batch Number SB-73

Formulation Number AN-25 AN-59 Batch Size kg (ib) 113 (250) 104 (230)

Card Gap Tests 10 negative 10 negative at 0 cards at 0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) 16497 16630 gcm3 (lbin 3 ) (00596) (00601)

JANNAF Uniaxial properties Sm Ncm 2 (psi) 90 (130) 88 (127) era 47 48

Sb Ncm2

eb (psi) 90 (130)

47 88 (127)

48

(6) JANNAF uniaxial properties for both batches were comparable

Maximum stress Sm was in the range of 88 to 90 Ncm2

(127 to 130 psi) and strain at maximum stress em was in

the range of 47 to 48 The low strain values are adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

e Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlHTPB System (3 HCl in

Exhaust) The five candidate alternate propellants listed and defined

in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were all scaled up to processing of 113-kg (250-1b)

batches loaded into BATES motors and test fired The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions using nozzles manufactured

and cut to actual expansion ratios of 716 Both chamber pressure and thrust were measured The tests were conducted at ambient temperature

conditions with propellant charges conditioned to 250C (770F) The

measured sea level Isp swas corrected to a vacuum Isp by simply adding the

back-pressure correction The following equations define the pertinent ballistic parameters

PC _f tEWAT Pc Edttb

J t at 075 Pc init

3-55

-- t EWA T F = dt tF=ftat 075 PC initFtt

Ab gPc KN= - = -

At crp

-- f ta C g At PdtWp g PcKN rp

It Isp ms = shywip

fta itr Fdt

to

PaAeIsp vac ms =Isp MS + -

Wp expended

(ta + tb)2

Figure 3-9 shows the burning rate of the formulation number AN-25 the ANAPAlHTPB propellant system with 10 AP Table 3-21 is a tabulashytion of theBATES motor test data from the test firings of batch number SB-74 of formulation AN-25

f Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlZrHTPB BATES motors were also loaded and tested with the modified ANAPAlHTPB formulation

containing 5 Zr powder a 15-pm powder The burning rates determined in BATES motors are shown in Fig 3-10 and the ballistic data from the BATES motors tests are tabulated in Table 3-22

3-56

PRESSURE psic 4

102 8 103 2 4 6 102 4 6 1524 i 1 1 1 6

A BATES MOTOR DATA 1016 4

n 0278

E --U 0508 -

2

KN shy

(D 0254 - 1000 1o0 1

z 0203- 800- 88

z

0152 - 600 6

0102 - -400 4

0051 I 200 2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73

3-57

2540 2032

1524

102

-

2 4

PRESSURE

6 103

I

psa

2 4 6 104 10

BATES MOTOR DATA 6

1016 n 0277 4

0508 2

O

S0254-0229 0152 -

KN

1000 800600600

I0-866

z

a

6102 - 400 4

0051 I I I 1 200 1 2

69

Fig 3-10

138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74

3-58

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test data

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

W loaded kg (lb)

Wp expended kg (lb)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-sem2 (lb-s)

E-1453 E-1455

9-15-75 9-23-75

SB-732 SB-733

3376 3109 (1329) (1224)

3393 3119 (1336) (1228)

25225 2525 p(55611) (5567) 25028 2501

(55177) (5513)

9922 9904

3840 3855 (1512) (15178)

811 742

881 797

425 576 (616) (835)

493 634 (715) (919)

459 590 (666) (856)

38844 45878 (56339) (66541)

3-59

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 PropellantTable 3-21 (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s)

p (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia)

r at PC cms

(ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s

(Ib-s)

F (JF dttb)6 N (lb)

It (f F dt) (ta)

N-s (lbrs)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

In vac ins N-skg M

E-1455E-1453

4723240196 (68504)(58300)

61834790 (8968)(69147)

05180483 (0190) (02o4)

534445332

528544739

1432 1424 (4700) (4673)

948953

5174650665 (11633)(11390)

6973461910 (15677)(13918)

53745852257 (120826)(11748)

212844207165 (21704)(21125)

88828820

228132226534 (2310) (23263)

3-60

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids Aluminum Oxidizer

88 15 AP-1O AN-59 HMX 0

Run No E-1453 E-1455

Expansion ratio 688 700

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test date

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

Wp loaded kg (ib)

Wp expended kg (ib)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

-E-1454 E-1456

9-18-75 9-26-75

SB-741 SB-742

3287 3119 (1294) (1228)

3307 3142 (1302) (1237)

2561 2561 (5647) (5646)2534 2528

(5586) (5574)

9891 9872

3835 38298 (1510) (15078)

3-61

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-IO AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s)

fP dt (ta) N-scm (lb-s)

Pc (f P dttb)

Ncm2 (psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

E-1454 E-1456

769 740

824 784

465 552 (675) (800)

541 620 (785) (899)

540 614 1 (783) (890)

40311 4482C (58467) (6500

41806 46000 (60634) (66718)

5242 6057 (7603) (8785)

0498 0518 (0196) (0204)

478 531

4726 523

13940 14319 (45736) (46977)

928 9527

3-62

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb)N (lb)

it (fF dt) (ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s-)

Isp efficiency

lsi vac ms N-skg(s22055

Expansion ratio

E-1454 E-1456

50189 50576 (11283) (11370)

6526 6835 (1467) (15365)

52044 52044 (11700) (11770)

20319 20447 (2072) (2085)

8598 865

22016

(2249) (2245)

696 694

3-63

8 ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (gt3 Wt HCl in Exhaust)

The propellant development work accomplished on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to this point indicated that the burn rate goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with the constraint of lt3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was probably not achievable Development work was continued on this propellant with the HC1 constraint removed but held to a minimum This section discusses that propellant development effort

a Burning Rate Studies Four small-scale batches (1500 g) were made varying the FEM AP (fluid energy mill-ground ammonium perchlorate) level from 10 to 30 wt The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground AD and 2 wt CU-0202 P was used End-of-mix viscosities pot life and cured strand burning rates were measured on each batch Objective of this work was to determine what FEM AP level was needed

to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) The formulations and test results are shown in Table 3-23and Fig 3-11 These results lead to the following conclusions

(1) The strand burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) is achievable using 18 wt FEM AP A motor burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) may require a slightly higher FEM AP level

(2) End-of-mix viscosities werein the range of 88 to152 kP at 520C (125 0 F) for FEM AP levels ranging from 10 to 20 wt Casting lives for these batches were 2_35 h at

520C (125 0F)

(3) Using FEM AP and increasing the AP level from 10wt to 18-wt increases HCI in the exhaust from 29 to =50

Thermoballistic calculations indicated that reducing the ballistic modifier level to 2 wt by elimination of the AD increased theoretical Isp by 196 N-skg (2 s) Elimination of the AD was desirable from other considerations Studies had shown that it crosslinks the R-45 prepolymer (probably through the double bond) and degrades propellant castability and physical properties Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made varying the FEM AP level over the range of 15 to 25 wt level Only 2 wt as received CU-0202 P was used as ballistic modifier End-of-mix viscosities and-cured strand burning rates were measured

Results of this study are shown in Table 3-24 and Fig 3-11 General conclusions from this work were

(1) Approximately 20 wt FEM AP is required to meet the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosities were in the range of 18 to 19 kP at 520C (1250F)

3-64

1 1 0902286

0802032 - 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 200

AD + 200 CU-0202 P

KZ 1778 690 Ncm2 (1000 psa) -070 E 200CU-0202 P

0 -060 O 1524

lt I- 345 Ncm

2 (500 psa) 200 AD 200CU-0202 P

0501270

z z

040 D2 1016 co

z z

0762- 030n

345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 200 CU-0202 P 0200508 -

I I 0100254 I I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FEM AP LEVEL wt

Fig 3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

3-65

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder 40 DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground (72 im)

Copper chromite as received (21 1im)

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto unground

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto fine grind

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy ground (63 tim)

SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

3050 3050 3050 -3050

2850 2350 1850 850

1000 1500 2000 3000

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier) (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

Formulation No AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

Brookfield Viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) kPh after CA

End-of-mix -152067 112062 88038 2806 LU

Pot life 18417 26418 22414 shy25627 3228 27224 3237 4038 40834

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0424 (0167) 0536 (0211) 0739 (0291) 1461 (0575) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0528 (0208) 0693 (0273) 1067 (0420) 2136 (0841)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 - 038 051 052

CA = curative addition

Table 3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (2 Wt Ballistip Modifier)

Batch No Formulation No

Ingredientswt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate

FEM ground 63 Pm

Brookfield End-of-Mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F)

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-135 AN-69

1200

1500

200

3050

2550

1500

10000

19

0437 (0172)

0660 (0260)

058

SB-136 SB-137 AN-70 AN-71

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

3050 3050

1550 2050

2500 2000

10000 10006

18

0884 (0348) 0615 (0242)

0242 (0489) 0930 (0366)

051 060

3-68

Based on these results formulation AN-71 with 2 wt as received CUshy0202 P and 20 wt FEM AP was selected for additional evaluation with

a scale-up batch and motor tests

b Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation Formulation AN-71 was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch [946 liter (25 gal) 113 kg (250 lb)] and motor tests It was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum 20 wt FEM AP and 2 wt ballistic modifier Details of the formulation are shownin Table 3-25 Formulation AN-71 was successfully mixed in the 946-liter (25-gal) mixer and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section III-H-8-c and d Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests

were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are also summarized in Table 3-25 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The propellant end-of-mix viscosity was 28 kP at 530C (127degF) which is high but acceptable Pot life was about 2 hours

(2) The strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was 0922 cms (0363 ins) which met the goal of 089 cms at

690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(3) Strand pressure exponent was 061 Motor pressure exponents are typically lower than strand pressure exponents The generally high pressure exponent is associated with the low ballistic modifier level (2 wt CU-0202 P) and the

fine (FEM) AP

(4) Card gap tests were negative at 0 cards Therefore they met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) The propellant density and JANNAF uniaxial properties obtained were typical of properties obtainedwith the ANAPAlHTPB propellant Measured density was 16497 gcm3 at 250C (00596 lbin3 at 770 F) Sm was 89 Ncm2 (129 psi) with an em of 37 The low strain values were adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

3-69

Table 3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation

ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Type Batch Number SB-140 Formulation No AN-71

113 kg (250 lb)Batch Size

Formulation wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized) 1192 004UOP-36 004DTBH

Copper Chromite as received 21 Am 200 Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 Ammonium nitrate

Monsanto unground 3050 Monsanto fine ground 2050

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 2000

Total 10000

Brookfield Apparent Viscosities kP at 0C (OF) Time after curative addition

09 h (end-of-mix) 28 at 53 (127) 19 h 52 at 52 (125) 29 h 73 at 52 (125)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins) At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) 0445 (0175) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0612 (0241) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) 0785 (0309) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0922 (0363)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 061 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests Negative at

0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) gcm3 (lbin 3) 16497 (00596)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties Sm Ncm2 (psi) 89 (129) em 37

89 (129)Sb Ncm2 (psi)eb 37

3-70

c Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAIHTPB (gt3 HCI in Exhaust)

As has been discussed the effects on this candidate propellant system

resulting from increasing the AP content were studied A formulation

with 20 AP and burning rate modifier reduced to 2 met the burning The burningrate and Isp goal This formulation is identified as AN-71

rates and measured Isp are shown in Fig 3-12 and Table 3-26 respectively

d Summary One ANAPAlHTPB propellant formulation was

developed that conformed to the program constraints for lt3 wt HCl

in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards

classification This formulation AN-25 had a motor burning rate

-of only 053 cms at 690 Ncm2 (021 ins at 1000 psia) and a

= 716 of only 2285 N-skg (233 s) A maximumdelivered vacuum Ip E

strand burning rate of only 064 cms at 690 Ncm2 (025 ins at

1000 psia) (unbiased by RAM-225 release agent) was achieved within

the program constraints with a small-scale batch using fluid energy

Since the development work indicated thatmillground (55 [m) AP

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1300 psia)

was probably not achievable with the constraint of _3 wt HI in the

propellant exhaust development work was continued with this constraint

removed but held to a minimum Formulation AN-71 was developed to

This formulation used only 200 meet the program goals on that basis

wt copper chromite as ballistic modifier and 2000 wt fluid energy

It had a motor burning rate of 097 cms atmill ground (63 gim) AP 1000 psia) and a delivered vacuum I E = 716690 Ncm2 (038 ins at

of 2403 N-skg (245 s) Table 3-27 summarizes and compares te properties

of these two formulations versus the program goals

The following summarizes the status of the ANAPAlHTPB propellant

development

(1) The basic ANAPA1HTPB propellat ip the second most

promising candidate of the three basic propellants

to good(2) Demonstrated that a few of AP is essential

aluminum combustion

of AP is required to meet(3) Demonstrated that more than 10

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins

at 1000 psia)

(4) Formulation AN-71 with 20 wt AP met the program goals for

burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [097 cms (038 ins)

achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] and delivered

= 716 [2403 N-skg (245 s) achieved versusvacuum Is at E

goal of 21403 N-skg (245 s)] but did not meet the goal

for pressure exponent (048 achieved versus goal of K042)

It conformed to the constraint for a Class 2 propellant

but did not conform to the constraint for lt_3 wt HUl in

the propellant exhaust

3-71

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellent

Solids 88 Alumindm 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX ---

Run No E-1484

Test Date 6-10-76

BatchChg No SB-1401

Nozzle Dt init cm (in) 48636 (19148)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 46380 (1826)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3025 (6670)

Wp expended kg(ib) 3025 (6668)

Wt expended 9997

Web thickness cm (in) 4648 (1830)

tb s 698

ta s 730

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 313 (454)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 380 (551)

Pc final Ncm 2 (psia) 317 (460)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24506 (355435)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24952 (3619)

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 351 (509) (psia)

r at cCms (ins) 0665 (0262)

KN initial 2103

KN average 21987

C ms (fts) 14604 (47914)

C efficiency 972

3-72

-E-1491

6-25-76

SB-1402

48636 (19148)

46355 (1825)

3016 (6650)

3003 (6621)

9956

4630 (1823)

654

705

317 (460)

421 (610)

238 (345)

24525 (355710)

24948 (36184)

3750 (5439)

0709 (0279)

2103

-21998

14638 (48026)

975

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX --shy

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 6248797 (14o4786) 6281131 (1412055)

F (fF dttb) N (lb) 895249 (20126) 960415 (21591)

it (fF dt for ta) 6356996 (142911) 6382382(1434817)

N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 210117 (21426) 215588 (21576)

Isp efficiency 9226 9256

Isp vac ms (corr) 240214 (24495) 241008 (24576)

Expansion ratio 716 726

(5) Formulation AN-25 with 10 wt AP met the program goal for presshysure exponent (028 achieved versus goal of lt042) but did not

meet the goals for burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [053 cms (021 ins) achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] dr for delivered vacuum I eE = 716 [2285 N-skg (233 s) achieved versus goal of gt2403 N-skg (245 s)] It conformed to the constraints for a Class 2 propellant and gt3 wt hCl in the propellant exhaust

(6) Demonstrated good castability and a pot life greater than

34 hours for formulation AN-25

(7) Demonstrated acceptable castability for formulation AN-71

(8) Successfully loaded and test fired 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with both formulations

(9) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

9 ANHMXAIHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished in the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined pershyformance goals within the constraints specified One of the advantages of this basic propellant is that it contains no AP and consequently generates no HCl in the exhaust However typical formulations using

3-73

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104

1524 I 1 1 6

1016 -A BATES MOTOR DATA 4

0 5x 10 MOTOR DATA 0508 - 2

E U

n =048 KN

0254 1-- 000 10 o 0203 800-6L 8

Z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0124 - 400 4 D

0051 200 2

I 10-20025 I1 I I

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm 2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140

3-74

Table 3-27 ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Achieved Properties vs Goals

Achieved Value

SB-140SB-73 AN-71AN-25-Alternate Propellant

Goal (10 wt- AP) (20 wt AP)Property

BATES motor Burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

089 (035) 053 (021) 097 (038)acms (ins)

BATES motor lt042 028pressure exponent

-Delivered vacuum sn

E 716 N-skg (s) 2403 (2245) 2285 (233) 2403 (245)

lt3 30 631C1 in exhaust

Meets card gap yes Required yesrequirement for Class 2 (negative (negative

at 0 cards)at 0 cards)

a45-kg (10-1b) motor test data

7) about to 20 wt HMX have theoretical Isp values

(vacuum and E 15 196 N-skg (2 s) less than comparable ANHNXAP(10)AlHTPB

formulations

Reduction in program funds and scope limited development effort on

this basic propellant to only four exploratory mixes

Two 10-g hand mixes one uncured and one a Safety Tests cured were made of formulations with 20 wt Class

A HMX to initially -Impact

check material compatibility and propellant safety properties

tests (DSC-differential scanning calorimeter) were made on both mixes

The formulations and results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-28

For comparison purposes these same safety tests were made on propellant

samples of the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-B-1123) Table 3-29

compares the safety properties of the candidate ANHMXAlHTPB formulation

AN-52 with the safety properties of PBAN baseline formulation TP-H-1123

These tests indicated

3-75

Table 3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No

Formulation No

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45 Alrosperse Premix DOA (4o)

Aluminum Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm Copper chromite as received Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 pm HMX Type II Class A

(DOA coated) Ammonium nitrate ground Ammonium nitrate unground

(+60 -32 mesh screened fraction) IPDI

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight 0 fire 50 fire

Electrostatic Sensitivity J

Thermal Stability (DSC - 10OCmin heating rate)

SB-59 SB-60

AN-51 (uncured) AN-52

1108 1108

1500 1500 200 200 200 200 7

2020 2020 3410 3410

1500 1500 none shy 062 9938 10000

4318 (17 )a 4572 (18) 4826 (19 )a 508 (20)

gt128 gt128

No exotherm No exotherm over tempera- over temperashyture range 21 ture range 21 to 1490c (70 to 1490c (70

to 3000 F) to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

3-76

Table 3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAiHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-52)

Formulation TP-H-1123 (PBAN Baseline)

Batch No SB-77

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400

HTPB binder

Aluminum 1600

Ballistic modifiers 040

Ammonium perchlorate 6960

Ammonium nitrate

HMX Type II Class A

Impact sensitivity cm (in) for 18 kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4318 (18) 50 fire 4953 (195)

Electrostatic sensitivity J gt128

Thermal stability (DSC - 100 Cmin heating rate) No exotherm

over temperature range 21 to -1490c (70tto 3000F)

DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

AN-52

SB-60

1190

1500

400

4910

2000

4572 (18) 508 (20)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000F)

3-77

(1) Formulation AN-52 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123)

(2) DSC data suggested that thermal stability of the 20 wt HMX propellant and gross material compatibility over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 300 0F) were adequate

(3) Formulations with up to 20 wt HMX could be safely processed inthe JPL ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

b Burning Rate Studies Two small-scale batches (1000 g) were made varying the level of Class A HMX from 1500 to 2000 wt Strand burn rate tests were made on cured propellant from both batches The formulations and results of strand burn rate tests are shown in Table 3-30 Strand burning rates increased from 0414 to 0450 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0163 to 0177 ins at 1000 psia) with the 1500 to 2000 wt increase in Class A HMX while the strand pressure exponent remained constant at 042 Although the strand pressure exponent met the performance goal of lt042 the burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)were well below the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) These very slow burn rates suggest that the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant may not be a viable candidate for achieving program goals

c Hazard Classification Card gap samples were cast cured and tested from the two batches shownin Table 3-30 Results of the card gap tests indicated positive tests at 35 and 70 cards on both batches Therefore these formulations with 15 and 20 wt Class A HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant hazard classification one of the major constraints Propellant development work on the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant was terminated at this point

d Summary The following summarizes the status of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant development

(1) Demonstrated that 1500 and 2000 wt_ Class A HMX resulted in Class 7 propellants

(2) Achieved a strand burning rate of 0450 cms (0177 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and a strand pressure exponent of 042 with a formulation containing 2000 wt Class A HMX

(3) Demonstrated good castability of the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant

(4) Discontinued development of this basic propellant as a result of reduction in funds

3-78

Table 3-30 ANHM4XHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-82A (HMX)

ANH-1

SB-81

ANH-1

(HMX)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class A 1500 2000

Ammonium nitrate 5400 4900

Card gap tests

0 cards 35 cards 70 cards

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

1 positive 2 positive

0-310 (0122) 0414 (0163)

042

1 positive 2 positive

0340 (0134) 0450 (0177)

042

3-79

10 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work-accompshylished on the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraints specified The constraint of lt_3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was accomplished by limiting the AP level in the formulation to10 wt The constraint of a Class 2 propellant hazard classification was primarily accomplished by limiting the HMX Class (particle size) and level to meet the card gap requireshyments for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards)

a Safety Tests Safety tests were performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes containing 20 wt Class A HMX to check material compatishybility and safety properties The formulations and the test results are shown in Table 3-31 As in the case of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant these safety tests results were compared to similar safety test results on the PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123) Table 3-32 shows this comparison General conclusions were

(1) Formulation AN-50 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as TP-H-1123

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F) as determined by the DSC

(3) Formulations with-up to 20 wt HMX could besafely proshycessed in the JPL-ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

Safety tests were also performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes to check material capability and propellant safety properties when the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were incorporated into ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellants Selected level for both UOP-36 and DTBH was 004 wt Impact sensitivity electrostatic sensitivity and thermal stability (DSC) tests were made on samples from the mix with the pot-life extendshyers SB-127 and on samples from a control mix without the pot-life extenders SB-126 The formulations and test results were shown in Table 3-33 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The mix with the pot-life extenders had essentially the same impact sensitivity and electrostatic sensitivity as the control mix

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000 F) (DSC)

b Burning Rate Studies Six small-scale batches were made varying HMX particle size at two sizes Class A ( 149 lm) and Class E (15 to 20 gim) and HMX level at three levels 10 15 and 20 wt Objective of this study was to determine the effects of HMX particle

3-80

Table 3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No SB-57 (uncured)

Formulation No AN-49

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45

Alrosperse Premix 1108

DOA (40)

Aluminum 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm 200

Copper chromite as received 200

Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 Jm 1000

HMX Type II Class A (1 DOA coated) 2020

Ammonium nitrate ground 3910

IPDI none

9938

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for

18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 Fire 381 (15)a

50 Fire 43-18 (17 )a

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over (DSC at 10degCmin heating temperature range rate) 21 to 1490C

(70 to 3000 F)

SB-58

AN-50

1108

1500

200

200

1000

2020

3910

062

10000

5334 (21)

5715 (225)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples

3-81

Table 3-32 -Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate--ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-50)

Formulation TP-H-1123 AN-50

(PANbaseline)

Batch Number SB-77 SB-58

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400 ---

HTPB binder --- 1190

Aluminum 1600 1500

Ballistic modifiers 040 400

Ammonium perchlorate 6960 1000

Ammonium nitrate --- 3910

HMX Type II Class A --- 2000

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4572 (18) 5334 (21)

50 fire 4953 (195) 5715 (225)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability (DSC at 100Cmin heating No exotherm over No exotherm-over rate) temperature rangeru temperature range

21 to 1490C 21 to 149 0 Cshy(70 to 3000 F) (70 to 3000 F)

size and level on propellant hazard classification (card gap tests) strand burningrates and relative castability Tests were performed on- samples from each of these batches and the results are summarized in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 alongwith-the formulations Results of the card gap tests and relative castability are discussed in the hazards classification and processing sections respectively The strand burn- ing rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) were plotted versus HMX level in Fig 3-13 forthe two different HMXparticle sizes Class A and Class E Although the strand burning rates are biased to faster values by the

3-82

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests

Formulations for 10-g Hand Mixes

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate attritor ground (44 pm)

Copper chromite attritor

ground (17 Pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (63 gm)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-Nshycyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine)

DTBH (ditertiary butyl hydroquinone)

Safety Tests (Cured Propellant)

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight)

0 Fire

50 Fire

SB-126 SB-127

ANH-16A (Control) ANH-30

1200 1192

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1300 1300

100 1000

004

0-04

10000 10000

43 (17) 57 (19)

52 (205) 51 (20)

3-83

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests (Continuation 1)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over No exotherm over

(DSC at 10degCmin heating rate)

temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000F)

temperature range 21 to 149 0C (70 to 3000F)

RAM-225 release agent the relative ranking and trends are believed to be valid General conclusions from these rankings and trends are as follows

(1) The fine particle size HMX Class E (15-20 pm) gave signifishycantly faster burning rates than the coarse Class A (=149 pm) HMX

(2) The fine particle size HMX Class E gave lower pressure exponent than the coarse Class E HMX

(3) Strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) increased significantly with HMX level to about 15 wt and tended to level in the 15 to 20 wt range

From burning rate considerations the fine size Class E HMX was preferred because it gave faster burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponents Formulation ANH-5A [Batch SB-85A(HMX)] was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed in Sections III-H-10-f and III-H-10-g on Scale-up and Ballistic Evaluation

Cured propellant strands to this point in the program had been prepared by casting the uncured propellant into molds which formed individual strands and which had been coated with RAM-225 release agent Test data from the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings(from Batch SB-89 (first scale-up batch) revealed a large discrepancy between strand burn rates and the 45-kg (10-1b) motor burn rates An investigation of this discrepshyancy revealed that the RAM-225 was the cause Strands were prepared in5 the following three ways and tested for comparison

(1) Strands cured in the RAM-225 release molds and restricted

(2) Strands cut from a solid block of cured propellant and restricted

(3) Strands cut from a block of cured propellant then given light spray coat of RAM-225 dried in 710 C (1600F) oven then restricted

3-84

Table 3-34 ANH-MXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class A

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchlorate

ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates2

at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500to 1000 psia)

SB-88

ANH-8

1200

1500

200

200

1000

4900

1000

2 negative

1 negative

0480(0189)a

6 65 (0 2 62 )a0

048

SB-83 SB-84

ANH-3 NH-4

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1500 2000

4400 3900

1000 1000

-

1 positive 1 positive

2 positive 2 positive

0 622 (0 245 )a 05 41(02 13 )a

0826 (0 32 5)a 0 7 47 (02 94 )a

041 047

3-85

Table 3-34 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) (Continuation 1)

Shore A Hardness (3 s) 81 80 82

Relative Castability Good Good Good

aStrands were cast into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

Results of the tests are summarized in Table 3-36 and Fig 3-14 Very good agreement was obtained between the burn rate of strands cured in the RAM-225 release mold and strands cut from a cured block of propelshy

lant and then sprayed with RAM-225 However both these sets of burn

rates were erroneously fast compared to the 5 x 10 motor burn rates In contrast the strand burn rates obtained from cut strands which were

not treated with RAM-225 were much slower and agreed fairly well with motor data

A brief investigation was made to determine the composition of RAM-225 and whether it could be used as an improved ballistic modifier in the propellant formulation Chemical analysis of RAM-225 indicated

that it is a high molecular weight silicone oil in the solvents isopropashynol and heptane Two 38-liter (1-gal) batches of propellant were made with 015 wt dimethyl silicone (1000 cS) One batch had 400 wt mixed ballistic modifiers (ammonium dichromate and copper chromite) and

the other batch had 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier Both batches made with the 015 wt dimethyl silicone showed signs of viscosity buildup even before curative addition The batch with the 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier became too viscous to process to completion Tests results on the successfully completed batch with 015 wt dimethshyyl silicon [Batch SB-107 (HMX)] are shown in Table 3-37 Test results from Batch SB-108 (HMX) are also included in this table for comparative purposes General conclusions from these tests are as follows

(1) No significant changes in strand burning rates were observed due to addition of 015 wt dimethyl silicone

(2) The dimethyl silicone caused rapid propellant viscosity buildup even before curative addition and therefore the material appears impractical from propellant processing considerations

A series of six small-scale (1000 g) batches was made with the specific objectives of increasing propellant burn rate improving castashybility and improving burn rate reproducibility US Agri-Chemicals (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent was used for all six batches The following variables were evaluated

3-86

0

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations --HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchloshyrate ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

32 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770 F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-87 SB-85A SB-86

ANH-7 ANH-5A ANH-6

1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500

200 200 200

200 200 200

1000 1500 2000

4900 4400 3900

1000 1000 1000

2 neg -

1 neg

I neg 2 neg 1 pos

1 pos

(500 psia) 0 767 (0 302 )a 0 930 (0 366 )a 0912(0359)a

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0970(0382)a 1105 (0 43 5 )a 1 128 (0444 )a

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2

(500to 1000 psia) 033 024 031

3-87

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation

(Class E HMX) (Continuation 1)

89 88Shore A Hardness (3 s) 90

Relative Castability Fair Fair Marginal

aStrands were east into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

(1) Ammonium nitrate particle size Replacement of part or all of the large unground prills by a coarse-ground ammor nitrate

(2) Plasticizer type Replacement of DOA (dioctyl adipate) by IDP (isodecyl pelargonate)

Relative castability and strand burn rates were measured on each batch Results of this study are summarized in Tables 3-38 and 3-39 and Fig 3-15 General conclusions regarding propellant burn rates from the study were as follows

(1) Replacement of the very large unground ammonium nitrate prills by coarsely ground ammonium nitrate reduced propelshy

lant burning rate

(2) Replacement of DOA by IDP slightly reduced propellant burnshying rate (Q2)

(3) Strand pressure exponents were typically 036 or less well within the goal of lt042

(4) The US Agri-Chemical (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent handled without caking and had less tendshyency to size reduce during handling tand mixing These

factors should improve propellant burn rate reproducibility

The reduction in burn rate by replacement of unground prills with coarseshyly ground AN was unexpected and inconsistent with usual solid propellant experience Usually propellant burn rate increases with increasing fractions of ground oxidizer The mechanism for this unusual response has not been identified to date Formulation ANH-12 Batch SB-94 (HMX)

had the fastest burn rate 0836 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0329 ins at 1000 psia) consistent with acceptable castability Therefore it was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of replacing bamer mill ground AP with the finer fluid energy mill (FEM) ground AP on propellant properties Micromerograph analysis

3-88

270I 050-K STRAND BURN RATES BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

CLASSE HMXZ 1016 040 0 0ashy10

7CLASS AHMX 0762 - 030 Z

z nD 2

z - -

Ce 0508 -020 1 F-I) 0 5 10 15 20

HMX wt

Fig 3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-89

Table 3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)

Strand Burning Rate cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

Strands cured Strands cut 5 x 10 motor Strands cut in RAM-225 from cured firings from cured

Pressure released mold block of block of Ncm 2 (psia) propellant propellant

sprayed with RAMshy225 dried and tested

690 (1000) 0991 (0390) 0721 (0284) 0660 (0260) 0983 (0387)

517 (750) 0876 (0345) - 0662 (0245)

345 (500) 0765 (0301) 0599 (0236) 0549 (0216) 0785 (0309)

172 (250) 0572 (0225) - 0457 (0180)

Pressure 042 027 028 033 exponent

indicated that the fluid energy mill AP had a mass median diameter of 63 Am compared to 90 pm for typical hammer mill ground AP Batch SB-110 (HMX) was made using 1700 wt Class E HMX and 1000 wt of the FEM AP A reference batch SB-98 (HMX) was made using the hammer mill ground AP Strand burn rates and relative castability were detershy

mined on both of the batches Results are shown in Table 3-40 and Fig 3-16

(1) Replacement of the hammer mill ground (9 pm) AP by the FEM ground (63 pm) AP increased strandburn rate to 0950 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0374 ins at 1000 psia) This exceeds the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) Strand pressure exponent appeared to be reduced with use of the FEM ground AP

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of finer ballistic modifier particle size on propellant properties As discussed in the ANAPHTPB propellant development section an attritor mill was used to size reduce the ballistic modifiers ammonium dichroshymate and copper chromite Batch SB-117 (HMX) was made using 200 wt

3-90

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPBbinder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper Chromite

Dimethyl silicone

(1000 cS)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground US Steel with anti-caking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground US Steel with antishycaking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium perchlorate ground

SB-l08 (Reference)

AN-20

1200

1500

200

200

-

2000

-

2900

-

1000

1000

SB-107 SB-109

ANH-19 ANH-21

1185 1185

1500 1500

200 100

200 100

015 015

2000 2000

2900 3100

-

1000 1000

- -

1000 1000

3-91

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations -Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation (Continuation 1)

Relative Castability Excellent Uncastable Mix could not castability be completed

cured up in mix bowl

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0665 (0262) 0673 (0265) -

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0818 (0322) 0808 (0318) -

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 026

Card gap tests

35 cards

55 cards

69 cards 3 positive 3 positive

attritor ground (17 pm) copper chromite 1700 wt Class E HMX and FEM ground (63 pm) AP No ammonium dichromate was used in this batch as a part of the overall effort to achieve the burning rate goal 089

cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with improved performance (Isc)castability and physical properties Reference Batch SB-116 (AN ) was made using as received (21 pm) copper chromite Table 3-41 summarizes results of Brookfield end-of-mix visosity and strand burn rate tests on these two batches These results led to the following conclusions

(1) In an IDP plasticized formulation using only 200 wt CU-0202 P as ballistic modifier coarse ground AN and 63 Im FEM ground AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 m increased the strand burn rate at 690

Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0724 to 0737 cms (0285 to 0290 ins) t_2

(2) No significant change in strand pressure exponent was observed

(3) Castability was good for both batches

3-92

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103

25401 0 1 100

2032 - A CURED IN RAM-225 RELEASED STRAND MOLD - 8

B STRAND CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK

1524- BURNED WITHOUT TREATMENT 6

EU C STRANDS CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK SPRAYED WITH RAM-225 DRIED THEN BURNED ui

1016- 4 0C oD

z 7I- 0 z z z

CA _B

o 0o

z z0508 2

V)

BATCH No SB-89 (HMX)

FOMULATION ANH-9

0254 I I i I 10-1 69 103 138- 207 345 690

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (IIX) Formulation ANH-9

3-93

Table 3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size

Variation (Class E HMX - DOA Plasticizer)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with antishycaking coating)

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with

anticaking coating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative castability

Strand burning rates

at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(at 1000 psia)

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-90 SB-91 SB-93 SB-95

ANH-9 ANH-10 ANH-11 ANH-13

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

1500 1500 1500 1500

4400 2900 1760

- 1500 2640 4400

_

1000 1000 1000 1000

Uncastable Uncastable Marginally Castable castable

- 0678 0678 0516 (0 267 )a (0234)a (0 2 0 3 )a

0953 0859 0859 0665 -(0 3 7 5 )a (0 3 3 8 )a (0 299)a (0 2 6 2 )a

034 035 036

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were cut

from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased

by RAM-225 release agent

3-94

Table 3-39 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX - IDP Plasticizer)

Batch No SB-94 SB-96

Formulation No ANH-12 ANH-14

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticizer) 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium diohromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class E 1500 1500

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 2900

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 1500 4400

Ammonium perchlorate ground 1000 1000

Relative Castability Good castability

Excellent castability

Strand burning rates at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

-

0836 (0 329 )a

0518 (0 204 )a

0655 (0258) a

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were

cut from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased by RAM-225 release agent

3-95

1016 1 040

eE aQCNO

DOA PLASTICIZER

z CI-o 100

lt 0762 030 - I--

IDP PLASTICIZER

z Z

a a z z

--- 1-shy

0508 I-I I I20

cn

0 20 40 60 80 100 FRACTION OF COARSE GROUND AN wt

Fig 3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN

3-96

C

Table 3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations -AP Particle Size Variation (HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

Ammonium perchloriate hammer mill ground (Micromerograph 50 wt point 9 gim)

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (Mieromerograph 50 wt point 63 pm)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 45 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Relative Castability

3-97

SB-98 ANH-16 Reference

1200

1500

200

200 shy

1700

2700

1500

1000

0653 (0257)

0810 (0319)

030

Good

castability

SB-110 ANH-16

1200

1500

200

200

1700

2700

1500

-

1000

0843 (0332)

0950 (0374)

017

Good castability

slightly more viscous than SB-98 (HMX)

1270 1 050

K K

CN4 E 0

1016 040 0

o 0

100

BURN RATE GOAL

z z

= 0762 - 030 D

z z

05081 I I I I 020 40 50 60 70- 80 90 100t

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) gm

Fig 3-16i Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-98

Table 3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Particle Size Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Copper chromite

As received (21 pm)

Attritor ground (17 pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground

Total

Relative castability

Brookfield end-of-mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F) Strand burning rates at 250C

(770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

3-99

SB-116 (Reference) SB-117

ANH-24A ANH-24B

1200 1200

1500 1500

200

- 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1500 1500

1000 1000

10000 10000

Good Good

168 136

0610 (0240) 0627 (0247)

0724 (0285) 0737 (0290)

028 024

As was observed with the ANAPAIHTPB propellant reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burn rates

Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better optimize the ballistic modifier system for the basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB propelshylant Previous to this point in the program the mixed ballisticmodifishyer system of 200 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) with 200 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was used It was desirable to reduce the total ballistic modifier level to less than 400 wt and recover some shy

performance (II delivered) Elimination of AD was also desirable because of its tendency to crosslink the R-45 prepolymer with subsequent degradation of propellant castability and physical properties Batches SB-132 (HMX) and SB-138 (HMX) were made using only as-receivedCU-0202 P as the ballistic modifier at the 200 wt and 300 wt levels respecshytively The objective of testing these two batches was to determine whether the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm

2

(1000 psia) could be achieved by using only CU-0202 P at levels less than 400 wt Brookfield end-of-mix and strandburning rates were measured on both batches Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-42 and they indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate achieved with 300 wt as-received CU-0202 P was 6nly 0810 cms (0319 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(2) Based on extrapolation the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) does not appear achievshyable even at 400 wt as-received CU-0202 P

(3) A mixed ballistic modifier system of AD and CU-0202 P appears necessary to meet the burning rate goal

The third batch SB-134 (HMX) was made using the mixed ballistic modifier system of 100 wt hammer mill ground (72 m) AD and 200 wt as-received CU-0202 P Brookfield viscosity and strand burning rates were also measured on this batch and results are also shown in Table 3-42 They indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate of 0879 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0346 ins at 1000 psia) was achieved with Batch SB-134 (HMX) This almost meets the goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosity of 21 kP at 520C (125 0 F) indicated the propellant had acceptable castability

Limited time and budget did not allow for any additional optimization of the ballistic modifier system Therefore Formulation ANH-33 [Batch SB-134 (HMX)] was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed inthe sections on Scale-Up and Ballistic Evaluation

3-100

---

Table 3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 [m

Ammonium dichromate Hamshymer mill ground 72 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

HMX Class E

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground 63 pm

Brookfield End-of-mix Viscosity kP at 520C (1250F)

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-132

ANH-34

1200

1500

200

2900

1500

1700

1000

10000

33

(500 psia) 0594 (0234)

At 690 Ncm2 0757 (0298) (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

3-101

SB-138 SB-134

ANH-32 ANH-33

1200 1200

1500 1500

300 200

--- 100

2800 2800

1500 1500

1700 1700

1000 1000

10000 10000

Could not 21 measure

0630 (0248) 0615 (0242)

0810 (0319) 0879 (0346)

036 051

In summary the following approaches were investigated as methods

of achievins faster propellant burning rates and the goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncmd (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(1) HMX class (particle size)

(2) HMX level

(3) Dimethyl silicone as ballistic modifier

(4) Finer AN particle size

(5) Finer AP particle size

(6) Finer CU-0202 P particle size

(7) Ballistic modifier type and level

Of these only (1) (2) (5) and (7) proved to be effective approaches

to faster burning rates

c Hazards Classification The Naval Ordnance Station (NOS) did some of the initial propellant hazard classification testing to define the maximum level of HMX which could be used and remain a Class 2 propellant The basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB formulation selected for testing was an 88 wt total solids HTPB (R-45) formulation with 150

wt aluminum and 10 wt ammonium perchlorate Tests were planned on formulations with and without the ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P Table 3-43 summarizes results of these hazard tests These results indicated that 20 wt Class E HMX (15 Mm)in non-ballistic modified formulations gave propellants which marginally met card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards) AP particle size appeared to affect card gap test results No firm conclusions could be made regarding the ballistic modified formulations

This effort to define the maximum HMX level for a Class 2 ballisshytic modified propellant was continued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with AFRPL support Card gap tests made on the ballistic modified formulations reported in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 are summarized in Table 3-44 for convenience

General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Maximum level of Class A HMX is greater than 1000 wt and less than 1500 wt for a ballistic modified formulation

to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

(2) Maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1500 wt and less than 2000 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

3-102

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Ingredients wt

AN (unground) 430 430 4776 4279 390 3862

AP 45p m 100 - - -

AP 6 [m - - 995 995 - -

AP 4 [m - 100- - - - -

AP 2 4m - - - - 100 99

HMX 15 pm 200 200 1493 1990 200 198

Al H-12 150 150 1493 1493 150 1485

HTPB Binder 120 120 1243 1243 120 1287

AD - - - - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

CU-0202 P - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

Lab Safety Tests

Impact sensitivity mm 375 375 350 275 -

Friction kg (lb) gt444 gt444 gt444 gt444 -

(980) (980) (980) (980)

ESD J gt125 L125 125 gt125

Field Safety Tests

Card gap cards 55 to 65 to 0 60 to 35 to 55 to 60 70 - 65 50 60

Cap neg neg neg neg neg neg

3-103

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data (Continuation 1)

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Unconfirmed burning neg neg neg neg neg neg

Critical dia cm (in) gt64 gt64 gt64 gt64 lt89 lt89 (25) (25) (25) (25) (35) (35)

aX-ray of samples showed evidence of voids

Table 3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A with Class E)

Batch No HMX Card Gap

Wt Class Positive Negative Cards

SB-88 10 A - 2 0 - 1 -35

SB-83 15 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-84 20 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-87 10 E - 2 0 - 1 35

SB-85A 15 E - 32 - 2 35

SB-86 20 E 1 - 35 1 70

Class E HMX was selected because higher levels could be incorporated and remain a Class 2 propellant and because it gave the best ballistic properties

3-104

Two additional small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better define the maximum level of Class E HMX The Class E HMX was varied to the 1900 wt and 1700 wt levels for Batches SB-97 (HMX) and SB-98 (HMX) respectively Card gap sensitivity strand burning rates and relative castability were measured in both batches Table 3-45 shows the test results These tests indicated the maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1900 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

The 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches were made varying Class E HIX level to 1500 1700 and 1750 wt Card gap verification tests were made on these batches as shown later in Table 3-49 and test results are summarized in Table 3-46

Results of all the tests indicated the maximum level of Class E IHMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt for a ballistic

) modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

d Processing Studies The relative castability of propellant was observed on the small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) development batches and used in the selection of formulations for evaluation in the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches Brookfield end-of-mix and pot life tests were measured on all of the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches

The coarse Class A HMX (W149 gim) has a better particle size than the fine Class E HMX (15 - 20 pm) for solids packing Consequently the Class A HMX yielded propellants with better castability than the Class E HMX (Table 3-35) However Class E HMX was selected for all the scale-up batches because higher HMX levels could be used and ballistic properties were better (faster burn rates and lower pressure exponents) The level of MX was generally limited by Class 2 card gap constraints before castability became unacceptable

The lower viscosity plasticizer IDP yielded propellants with significantly better castability than the plasticizer DOA with only a slight loss in propellant burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) (Tables 3-38 and 3-39) Therefore IDP was the selected plasticizer

Replacement of the very coarse unground AN prills by coarselyground AN improved castability but reduced propellant burning rate Consequently the fraction of AN coarse ground was limited to 34 to maximize burn rate consistent with good castability (Tables 3-38 and 3-39

Replacement of the hammer mill ground (90 14m) AP by the fluid energy mill ground (63 jim) AP made the propellant more viscous but castability remained good (Table 3-40) This change significantly increased propellant burning rate and made the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) achievable (Fig 3-16) Therefore the fluid energy mill ground AP (63 pm) was selected for use when it became available

3-105

Table 3-45 ANHMXAPAHTPB-Formulation-z HMX Level (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating)

Ammonium nitratecoatse -ground (US Steel with anticaking c6ating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative Castability shy

-

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards

55 Cards

69 Cards

3-166

SB-97 SB98 ANH-15 ANH-16

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1900 1700

-2500 2700

1500 1500

1000 1000

Good Good

castability castability

0678 (0267) 0653 (0257)

0826 (0325) 0810 (0319)

028 030

1---positive

--- 1 positive

4 positive 2 negative

---

---

---

---

---

Table 3-46 JPL Hazard Test Data (Class E)

HMX Batch No

Wt Class

SB-89 (HMX) 15 E

SB-92 (HMX) 15 E

SB-106 (HMX) 175 E

SB-141 (H4X) 17 E

Positive

4

3

I

I

I

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

2

1

Card Gap

Negative Cards

6 0

10 35

2 0

5

--- 10

--- 15

--- 20

--- 27

3 30

5 35

--- 69

2 70

--- 35

--- 60

--- 61

--- 62

3 63

1 65

10 69

3-107

Replacement of the as-received CU-0202 P (21 pm) by attritor ground CU-0202 P (17 pm) did not significantly affect propellant castashybility Since this change increased burning rate by only 2 the asshyreceived (21 pm) CU-0202 P was selected Increasing the Cu-0202 P level from 200 to 300 wt significantly increased propellant viscosity making it less castable (Table 3-42)

Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were shown to signifishycantly improve castability and pot life with the ANAPAlHTPB propellant After checking to determine these materials were compatible and safety properties were adequate these pot-life extenders were incorporated into the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant

e Combustion Problems The problem of incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered speciflc impulse was addressed for the basic ANHMXAPAlHTBP propellant early in the program Two approaches evaluated to improve metal combustion I Land delivered specific impulse were

(1) Use of aluminummagnesium (AlMg) alloys

(2) Replacement of aluminum by magnesium

This work (by NOS) was done concurrently Mith the development -CV of the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant using conventional aluminum For convenience and clarity all of the NOS propellant development work done with the R-45 HTPB binder is reported and discussed in this section

Table 4-47 summarizes results of motor tests on ANHMXAPA1HTPB propellants with no ballistic modifiers Propellant formulation variations made were

(1) Total solids loading (87 to 88 wt )

(2) AP particle size (20 and 200 [m)

(3) HMX (Class E) level (20 and 30 wt )

(4) Metal level (15 to 20 wt ) shy

(5) Metal type (Al -and AlMg alloy)

The motors tested were either 4536-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors or 1814-kg (40-1b) charge (FPC) motors at sea level conditions Corrections to vacuum conditions with E = 685 were made as shown in Table 4-47 General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Motor burning rates at 483 Ncm2 (700 psia) were all in the range of 0356 to 0457 cms (014 to 018 ins) Ballistic modifiers are required to meet burning rate goal of 089 Ncm2 (035 ins) with a pressure exponent of

042

3-108

Table 3-47 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation

Specific Impulse

Propellant Data N-skg (s)

Burning rate at 483 Ncm

2

AP Vacuumd (700 psi)Motor Percent Particle Percent Percent

Typeb of AP Size m of HMX of Metal Type of Metal Delivered c = 685 cms (ins)

TPC 10 200 20 20 Aluminum 19476 (1986) 0356 (014)

20 19 AlMg (9010) 19760 (2015) 21633 (2206) 0381 (015)TPCa 200

TPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 21114 (2153) 22271 (2271) 0381 (015)

TPC 200 20 15 AlMg (9010) 20359 (2076) 20908 (2312) 0356 (014)

0 TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20398 (2080) 22467 (2291) 0356 (014)

TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23134 (2358) 0356 (014)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 21045 (2146) 23222 (2368) 0457 (018)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23242 (2370) 0457 (018)

FPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 19192 (1957) 21898 (2233) 0445 (0175)

00 wt total solids loaded propellant the remainder are 88 wt a87 bTPC are 4536-kg (10-1b) charge motor grains

CFPC are 1814-kg (40-1b) charge motor grains dAll motor tests were made at sea level Correction to vacuum conditi6ns was made as follows

fFdt me + Pa Aeta Vac Isp ms =

CF Creq

Correction to desired expansion ratio (c req) was done by multiplying vac Isp ms by C

CF C act

(2) The maximum vac Isp ms e = 685 obtained for this series of tests were 23242 N-skg (2370 s) This was obtained using 15 wt conventional Al 20 wt Class E HMX and 10 wt 20 jim AP The performance goal was vac Isp ms

E = 71 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(3) Reducing the AP particle size from 200 to 20 gm significantly improved vac Isp ms pound1177 N-skg (C12s)] and increased

burning rate

(4) Increasing the Class E HMX level from 20 to 30 wt signishyficantly increased vac Is ms 686 N-skg (-7 s) However propellant with 30 wt C ass E HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Increasing the metal level from 15 wt to 19 or 20 wt significantly reduced vac inpMs

(6) Replacement of the conventional aluminum by the AlMg alloy

(9010) appeared to give a small performance gain 392 N-skg (14 s) However the data was too limited to draw

firm conclusions

Propellant development effort was continued in an effort to achieve the performance goals The ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P were selected based on work done by JPL In addition finer AP particle sizes were selected based on the ability of this approach to achieve both improved performance and faster burning rates A Class E HMX level of 20 wt O was selected as the maximum to meet card gap requirements for Class 2 propellants based on card gap tests available at that time Table 3-48 summarizes motor test and theoretical performance results on the three ballisttc modified propellant formulations evaluated Formushylation 2A used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system 10 wt 55 Jim AP and 15 wt conventional aluminum Formulation 2Bused 1 wt AD as ballistic modifier 10 wt 10 gm AP and 15 wt AlMg alloy (9010) Formulation 2C used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system no AP and 15 wt magnesium The motor test results shown are all from 45-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors Since several formulation variables were varied between the three formulations it is not possible to isolate just the effect of metal type on propellant performance However the following general conclusions can be made from this work

(1) Formulation 2A which used conventional aluminum was the most promising candidate The vac Isp ms E = 684of 24144 N-skg (2462 s) met the goal of vac Isp Ms E = 71 -2403 N-sks (245 s) Burning rate achieved was 076 cms at 483 Ncm (030 ins at 700 psia) compared to the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with a pressure exponent _04

(2) Formulation 2B which used the AlMg alloy (9010) had a theiretical Isp (1000147) nearly the same as formulashy

tion 2A but Vac Isp msC = 684 was only 23252 N-skg(2371 s) In addition the burning rate was only 053

3-10

---

---

Table 3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured

Propellant No

Ingredients wt

AN

AP

HMX (15 pm)

Al

AlMg alloy (9010)

Mg

AD

CU-0202 P

R-45M

DOA

Theoretical Density gcm 3

(lbin3 )

Theoretical I

(Iooo147 )a Lcm 2 (s)

Measured Isp N-skg (s) at e = 55

2A

410

100 (55 fim)

200

150

10

10

80

40

17051

(00616)

24978

(2547)

22810 (2326)

Measured Vac Is N-skg (s) 24144 corr to E = 68 (2462)

Burn rate at 483 Ncm3

(700 psia) cms 076 (ins) (030)

2B 2C

420 510

100 (10 pm) --shy

200 200

150 --shy

--- 150

10 10

--- 10

100 80

20 40

16829 16027

(00608) (00579)

24958 23997 (2545) (2447)

21310 20113 (2173) (2051)

23252 22673 (2371) (2312)

053 041 (021) (016)

aStandard Conditions Chamber pressure of 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and expanded to 1 atm (147 psia)

3-111

cms at 483 Ncm2 (021 ins at 700 psia) for this formulation This data suggests that there was no performance advantage in using the AlMg alloy compared to conventional aluminum

(3) Formulation 2C which used magnesium as the metal had theoshyretical density and theoretical Isp (1000147) values significantly lower than formulation 2A The measured Isp and burning rates confirmed that this was-the least attractive of the three formulations

This work was ended at this stage of the program Good Isp efficiencies were being achieved with conventional aluminum using 10 wt fine particlesize AP and the selected ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P

f Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Four formulashytions were selected for scale-up evaluation and motor tests throughout the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant development effort Table 3-49 shows these four formulations Major changes in the formulations which were made as a result of the development effort on the small scale were

(1) dhange from DOAt lower viscbsity lasti6izdr IDP to improveshycastability

(2) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH to improve castability and pot life

(3) Reductions of the total ballistic modifier level from 400 wt to 300 wt to improve performance

(4) Selection of 17 wt ClassE HMX to achieve maximum performance and burning rate within the constraint of a Class 2 propellant

(5) Changes in the AN type to the higher density harder prill Monsanto AN to improve castability and burn rate control

(6) Change from hammer mill ground 8-9 gm AP to the finer fluid energy mill ground 63 Itm AP to achieve faster burning rates

All four formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into 5 x 10 motors BATES motors and small-scale samples The motors were successfully tested and results are summarized and discussed in Subsection g Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

3-112

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No SB-89 SB-92 SB-106 SB-141

Formulation No ANH-9 ANH-12 ANH-18 ANH-33

Batch size kg (ib) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Ingredients wt

R-45 polymer 6470 6582 6528 6397

DOA plasticizer 4613

IDP plasticizer --- 4647 4609 4615

)OA plasticizer (HMX coating) 0187 0153 0191 0185

Lirosperse 11 P 0113 0113 0113 0113

UOP-36 0040

DTBH --- --- --- 0040

IPDI 0617 0559 0559 0610

Ammonium dichromate (ground 7 Mm) 200 200 200 100

Copper chromite (as received 21 pm) 200 200 200 200

Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500

--- --- ---

---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil U S Steel Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

U S Steel Monsanto ---

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8-9 Am fluid energy mill ground 63 Am

Totals

Brookfield apparent viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) (Viscosity kPtime after curative addition)

End-of-mix

(Continuation 1)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

1500

4400

1000

10000

2208 2018 2128

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

1500

2900

1500

1000

10000

1609 2819 2929 4139 4149

SB-106 SB-141

ANH-18 ANH-33

104 (230) 113 (250)

1750 1700

2900 2800

1250 1500

1000 --shy1000

10000 10000

1008 708 1418 1318 2228 1527 2438 2137

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Nam 2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm (750 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

20 cards 27 cards 30 cards 35 cards 60 cards 61 cards 62 cards 63 cards

65 cards

(Continuation 2)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

0599 (0236)

0721 (0284)

027

6 negative 4 positive

10 negative

---

---

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

0503 (0198) 0617 (0243) 0691 (0272) 0775 (0305)

031

2 negative 3 positive 1 positive 1 positive 3 negative 5 negative

SB-106

ANH-18

104 (230)

0566 (0223) 0683 (0269) 0767 Co302) 0818 (0322)

027

SB-141

AHN-33

113 (250)

0544 (0214) 0622 (0245) 0719 (0283) 0805 (0317)

037

1 positive 1 positive 2 positive 3 negative

1 positive 1 negative

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type (Continuation 3)

SB-89 SB-92 SB-I06 SB-141Batch No

Formulation No ANH9 ANH-12 ANH-18 AHN-33

Batch size kg (lb) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Card Gap Tests (Contd)

69 cards --- --- --- 10 negative

70cards --- --- 2 negative 6 positive

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770 F) gcm3 (lbin3 ) 16746 (00605) 16359 (00591) 16691 (00603) 16663 (00602)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties

Sm 1cm 2 (psi) --- 49 (71) --- 64

em --- 19 --- 68

44 (64)--- 49 (71) ---Sb Ncm 2 (psi)

68eb --- 19 ---

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-49 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) End-of-mix viscosities and pot life improved as changes were made to IDP plasticizer use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH and Monsanto AN End-of-mix viscosity for batch SB-141 (HMX) was 7 kP at 520C (125 0 F) and pot life was greater than 37 h

(2) Faster burning rates were achieved as the HNX level was increased as the Gulf Oil AN was replaced by US Steel AN and then by Monsanto AN and as the hammer mill ground AP was replaced by the finer fluid energy mill ground AP

(3) Maximum strand burning rate achieved at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) was 081 cms (032 ins) with batch SB-106 (HMX)

(4) Strand pressure exponents on all four formulations were in the range of 027 to 037 Motor pressure exponents were lower than strand pressure exponents These low-pressure exponents are advantageous and meet the goal of lt042

(5) Card gap tests verified that the maximum level-of Class E HMX which meets the card gap requirements for a Class 2 propellant is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt

(6) Measured densities were in the range of 16359 to 16746 gcm3 (00591 to 00605 lbin3) for the four formulations

(7) The JANNAF uniaxial properties were oor with maximum stress values in the range of 44 to 49 Ncm (64 to 71 psi) and strain at maximum stress values in the range of 19 to 68

g Ballistic Evaluation ANHMXAPAIHTPB Systems The candidate alternate propellant containing HMX was evaluated in BATES motor firings at three levels of HMX 150 170 and 175 The 150 HMX formulation yielded the highest measured Isp Theoretical calculations had shown 170 to 175 to be optimum for maximum Isp Data from the BATES motor tests suggests that the actual optimum HMX level is somewhere between 15 and 16 This level of HMX in the propellant has been demonstrated to be within the Class 2 requirement The ballistic test data for the three HMX systems follows

(1) Formulation ANH-12 (150 HMX) Figure 3-17 shows the burning rate KN and pressure exponent for this propellant The BATES motor test data is summarized in Table 3-50

(2) Formulation ANH-39 (170 HMX) The ballistic evaluation test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-18 and Table 3-51

3-117

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104 61524 1 1 1

41016-

-2 2lt E0508-

0 KN -IA BATES MOTOR DATA KN

100 1 -1 0264 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 1000 10

0 0203_ 800 -8 0152 n 0310152 600 6

D 0102 - 400 -4

0051 - 200 - 2

I I I I 100025 1 -2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895 2

PRESSURE Ncm

Figure 3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92

3-n18

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No E-1466 E-1467

Test Date Nov 14 1975 Nov 26 1975

BatchChange No SB-921 SB-922

Nozzle Bt initial 4699 3764 cm (in) (1850) (1482)

Nozzle Dt final 4374 3571 cm (in) (1722) (1406)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 2981 2979 (6572) (6567)

Wp expended kg (ib) 29395 2940

(64806) (6482)

wt expended 986 987

Web thickness cm (in) 45789 4610 (18207) (1815)

tb (burn time) s 735 586

ta (action time) s 764 624

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 310 531 (450) (770)

PC max Ncm2 (psia) 386 731 (560) (1060)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 376 702 (545) (1018)

AP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26245 41056 (38066) (59547)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26779 42285 (38840) (61329)

3-119

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

Pa (3P dttb) Ncm2

(psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

It (1F dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion Ratio

E-1466

Nov 14 1975

SB-921

3511 (5179)

0630 (0248)

2253

2411

14507 (47594)

962

6193679 (1392395)

842675 (189441)

6198003 (1393367)

207921 (21202)

9249

237546 (24223)

70

E-1467

Nov 26 1975

SB-922

7006 (10162)

0787 (0310)

3511

3689

14983 k49156)

1006

6349309 (1427382)

1083497 (24358)

6559790 (147470)

220218 (22456)

916

235526 (24017)

70

3-120

PRESSURE psia

10 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 104 1524 I 6

1016 4

0508 0- 2

u KN A BATES MOTOR TESTS N

0254 - 1000 10lt 2 0 5x 10 MOTOR TESTS 8 - 1

0203800g- 8

Z 0152 n 037 600 6 z z

0102 400 4

0051 -- 200 2

I I1 -2

0025 69 138 345 690 1379 t 3447 6895

-PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 AHHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-141

3-121

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 PropellantTable 3-51

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

E-1490E-1489Run No

62376 62476Test Date

SB-1412 SB-1411BatchChange No

352684572Nozzle Dt initial cm (in) (1800) (13885)

3444Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 4531

(1784) (1356)

30133017W loaded kg (ib) (6651) (6643)

29332938Wp expended kg (lb) (6477) (6466)

97339738 wt expended

Web thickness cm (in) 4633 4643 (1824) (1828)

570747tb (burn time) s

638 ta (action time) S

794

Pc initialNem2 (psia) 345 683 (500) (990)

362 Pc maximum Ncm2 (psia) 752 (525) (1090)

Pc final Ncm2 N(psia) 324 649 (470) (942)

41665fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 25961 (37654) (6043)

ft dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26554 42802 (6208)(38514)

Pc ( P dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 347 731 (524) (1060)

3-122

Table 3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

r at P0 cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

F dt (tb) Ns (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

it cfF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion ratio (E)

De cm (in)

2Ae cm (in2 )

3-123

E-1489 E-1490

62376 62476

SB-1412 SB-1411

0620 0815 (0244) (0321)

2330 3989

2395 4077

143Q7 13540 (46940) (44421)

945 895

5979680 6258348 (1344286) (1406933)

8007 10978 (1800) (2468)

60958 64441 (13704) (14487) 202056 21388

(20604) (2181)

887 872

23183 22810 (2364) (2326)

716 716

12233 9426 (4816) (3711)

117522 69781 (18216) (10816)

(3) Formulation ANH-18 (175 HMX) The ballistic evaluation

test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-19 and Table 3-52

h Summary Two ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant formulations were developed that conformed to the program constraints for 3 wt HCl in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards classification These two formulations are ANH-12 (15 wt Class E HMX) and ANH-33 (17 wt Class E HMX) Table 3-53 summarizes and compares the properties of these two formulations versus the program goals Both formulations met the goals for pressure exponent and hazard classification but not the goal for burning rateor delivered vacuum I

The following summarizes the status of the ANH4XAPAlHTPB propellant development

(1) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic propellants

(2) Demonstrated the propellant is Class 2 with levels of Class E HMX up to 17 wt

(3) Demonstrated good castability and pot life greater than 37 h for formulations with 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(4) Successfully loaded and test fired 45-kg (10-1b) motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with formulations containing 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(5) Demonstrated a delivered vacuum Isp (E = 716) of 23752 N-skg (2422 s) with formulation ANH-12

(6) Demonstrated a BATES motor burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) and a pressure exponent of 037 with formulation ANH-33

(7) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

(8) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 150 and 170

11 Baseline PBAN Propellant Modification

The current baseline propellant system in the Shuttle SRM is

an 86 solids 16 aluminum PBAN propellant developed by the Thiokol Corporation This baseline propellant has a burning rate of approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) pressure In order to simplify the task of matching the burning rates of the alternate propellant and the PBAN baseline-propellant at 400Ncm2 (580 psia)

-3-124

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 103

1524 I 6

1016 - 4

A BATES MOTOR DATA 0508 - 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 20508 n =031

E -_ Ko

U IN

u- 0254 - -1000 10shy0203 -800 8

oD 0 z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0102 - 400 4

0051 200 2

0025 I I I0 - 2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Figure 3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-106

3-125

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HNX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

Nozzle Dt initial 4592 3543 cm (in) (1808) (1395)

Nozzle Dt final 4463 3388 cm (in) (1757) (1334)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3022 3023 (6662) (6664)

Wp expended kg (ib) 2956 2957

(6516) (6519)

Wt expended 9781 9782

Web thickness cm (in) 4615 4615 (1817) (1817)

tb (burn time) s 788 - 628

ta (action time) s 818 665

PC initial Ncm2 (psia) 248 483 (360) (700)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 352 717 (510) (1040)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 296 622 (430) (902)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 262146 42991 (380212) (62353)

fp dt (ta) N-scm 2 (lb-s) 265874 44074 (385619) (63924)

3-126

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HMX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 1471 3026 (4825) (9929)

r at Pc cms (ins) 0587 0734 (0231) (0289)

KN initial 2353 3953

KN average 2421 4131

C ms (fts) 14159 13741 (46425) (45083)

C efficiency 945 916

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 599055 6320560 (134673) (1420919)

F (fF dttb) N (ib) 7602 100645 (1709) (22626)

it (fF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s) 608823 6498885 (136869) (1461008)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 201478 215001 (20545) (21924)

Isp efficiency 8901 8868

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s) 231761 229240 (23633) (23376)

Expansion ratio 71 72

3-127

Table 3-53 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goal

Achieved Value

Alternate Propellant SB-92 (HMX) SB-141 (HMX)

Property Goal ANH-12 ANH-33 (15 HMX) (17 HMX)

Burning Rate at 089 0785 0813 690 Ncm 2 (035) (0309) (032) (1000 psia) BATES Motor cms (ins)

Pressure Exponent lt042 032 037 BATES motor

Delivered Vacuum 2403 23732 23183 Isp N-skg (s) (gt245) (2422) (2364)

71)

HCl in Exhaust 3

Meets Card Gap Requirement for Class 2 yes yes Class 2 required (negative (negative

at 30 cards) at 30 cards)

pressure it was decided to miodify the baseline propellant system to

meet a burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) This modified baseline applies to the dual propellant concept with the alternate propellant only It does not apply to the current Shuttle design requirements The 081 cms (03 ins) burning rate has been achieved and demonstrated in 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings The modified PBAN formulation is referred to in this report as the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

In modifying the basic PBAN formulation to meet the new burning

rate requirement a study was made of the effect on the burning rate of adjusting the Fe203 burning rate catalyst concentration and the

particle size blend of the AP oxidizer The desired burning rate was achieved with a formulation containing a biomodal blend of

Table 3-54 gives the final formulationoxidizer and 0 Fe203 the density and some burning characteristics of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

3-128

Table 3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend

Ingredients Wt

Ammonium perchlorate

200 pm 4900 10 pm 2100

Aluminum (Alcoa 1230) 1600

PBAN polymer 1204

DER-331 196

10000

Density 2500 (770F) = 17743 gcm3 (00641 lbin3 ) Burn Rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 081 cms (032 ins) Pressure exponent n = 0228 at I

345 Ncm 2 (00 psia) lt Pc lt 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

The burning rate of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant was verified by test firing several 5 x 10 motors using 45 kg (-10 lb) of propellant over a range of pressures Figure 3-20 shows the burning rates and corresponding Kn values The burning rate equation for this modified PBAN propellant based on the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings is

r = 00668 PC0228

3-129

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 8104

1524 6

1016- 4

0508 - 2

E K - 0 5x 10 MOTOR DATAshy

0254 - 1000 10 - 1

0203 n = 0228 800 8 z 0152- a = 00668 600 6

z z 0102 -400 4

200 20051

0025 _I _I I I 10-2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant)

Batch No SB-78

3-130

SECTION IV

UNWORKED AREAS

The program as originally planned included a significant effort in the development of the candidate alternate propellant physical propshyerties and checks to verify adequacy of candidate alternate propellant in the bipropellant grain The reduction of funds and scopeof the program left many of these tasks unworked If the alternate propelshylant concept for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Motor is pursued on another program then the following unworked areas should be worked

(1) Candidate alternate propellant physical property improvement

(2) Physical property characterization of unaged alternate

propellant

(3) Aging of alternate propellant

(4) Bipropellant interface bond unaged and aged

(5) Alternate propellant insulation interface bond unaged and aged

(6) Performance tests at altitude on candidate alternate propellant

(7) Motor tests with bipropellant grain

(8) Characterization of alternate propellant safety properties

The generally poor physical properties (primarily low strain) measured with both the ANAPAlHTPB and the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propelshylants are believed due primarily to the following causes

(1) Poor bond of the HTPB binder to the oxidizer particles

AN and HMX

(2) Crosslinking of the R-45 HTPB polymer through the double bonds caused by the acidity of AN

The approach planned to solve the poor bonding properties to the oxidizer particles was development of bonding agents for both the AN and the HMX Aerojet Solid Propulsion Company has demonstrated significantly improved physical properties in HMXAPAlHTPB propellants using polyureas as bonding agents Epoxides and polyureas were considered as candidate bonding agents for the AN Development of an acid scavengershywas considered as one of the approaches to the second cause of the poor physicals

4-1

SECTION V

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this alternate propellant development effort led to the following general conclusions

(1) It is technically feasible to minimize (lt_3 wt ) release of HCl above 1981 km (65000 ft)

(2) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants Formushylation ANH-12 is the best formulation developed to date

(3) Propellant with 17 wt Class E HMX meets card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(4) The basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant is the second most promshyising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants

(5) More than 1000 wt AP (gt3 HCI in propellant exhaust) is required in the ANAPAlHTPB propellant to meet the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) Formulation AN-71 with 2000 wt AP is the best formulation of this type developed to date

(6) The basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant (0 HCl) is the least promising candidate and probably not viable for achieving program goals

(7) A few of AP is essential to achieve good aluminum comshybustion

(8) Good castability and acceptable pot life were achieved with all three basic alternate propellants

(9) Additional development effort is needed to improve the physical properties of any of the candidate propellants

(10) The small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justify the potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradashytion

(11) The Monsanto phase stabilized E-2 AN is the preferred AN type because it has the best physical and handling propershyties at comparable cost compared to other AN types

(12) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 15 and 17

5-I

(13) With additional effort to optimize the formulation with regard to HMX level burning rate modifier level and oxidizer particle size the program goals ban be met with an ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant system

5-2

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM

SOLUBILITY OF MTN INI HYDROCARBON BINDER

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

MMORANDUM

From 2051BCTo 563 Via 205

Subj Solubility of MTN in hydrocarbon binder

1 A study was conducted to determine if MTN could be used in the R45 binder system for the NASA II propellant Dicetyladipate (DOA) would be used for a co-solvent

2 Figure 1 is a portion of a phase diagram for the MTN-DOA-R45 system Areas to the right of the curve are two phase Areas to the left of the curve are single phase The effect of temperature is also shown

3 For Figure 2 TP90B was used instead of DOA TP90B is not as effective a co-solvent as DOA

4 Beccause PPG-1225 (a polypropylene glycol) is soluble both in R45 afidMTN it also was invesrigated PFG-1225 has an advantage over DOA in that it is a reactive polymer and could contribute to the mechanical strength as well as providingco-solubility In Figure 3 a 5050 mixture of R45 and PGshy1225 was used for the starting material The solubility of MTN was determined Because PPG-1225 was not a very goodco-solvent DOA was added to enhance the solubility Areas to the right of the curve are two phase and areas to the left of the curve are single phase

5 For Figure 4 a starting material of 733 R-45 and 261 PPG-1225 was used DOA was used to enhance the solubility of MTN in the system

6 It was determined that adiponitrile was not solulle in R45 and therefore could not be used to replace DOA

7 It was determined that R-18 (a polyglycol adipate) was not soluble in R45 and therefore could not be used to replacePPG-1225

8 A sample from Figure 1 was cured with IPDI This will be used to evaluate the long term effect of the nitrate ester on the binder system

Enclosure (1)

A-i

OrNA PALi I

1

ROOM--H- 2 - I

____

-OM I H j 1 35 TEMPERATURE i TI I ItI

I I I I

25

I 3 0 Z _--_ _ _

i i ii

5 n

JI t II it

t - -- -

151 1 1H - IL I

i s _ _

I- III I I I

715

MTffN 20 2 P

Figure 1 So bility of DOA and TN plusmnn R-A5

A-2

- -

40

Lj

r -

11- f

- - iutm

30 HH

-4-

__I_ ____

~ I

~vt

_

[ I_ _ iJ

25 _ _ _

1 1kH I __ _ _ _- _ _ __ _ _

-H 71

- r T--- W 4J-W-L -- t ___ __

_ _ _ __ _ _

q----i- -

52

Figure2 Solubility o f P9BadM1 nR4

A-3

iplusmn II1 -shyI~hhiI4plusmnplusmnt~~t~ -

LL J-

rO zt_-il 4 it-T i -- - -- --a -- 4- shy

-- 4 tL ---L-C-- 1 ------ 13-F- --shy

--- 4 i

I _

I I --0F

L II

it I _ _ _- _ I___

I- - -- - - - ---- shy--_ _ __ __-L J _ _

I - i t1 hIIt -____I j I

-+4 4 1 - - - -I 7 _ -J shy______ _ 2---2--I_lc_

L L rI-T- r

4 -I - -t -- u

10 15 20 25 30 N

Figure 3 Solubility of DOA and LMN in 50 R-4550 PG-1225

A-4

1

35 f

it-lt-ir

II I II

303i-- h

4o

z5-11144_FLI Lb deg T - shy i

bull

25

- -

20

I

- i11 fI1I

Ii JIf j -shy

1 iifIF

I I j I

dstkj tji--4

-4--4 1

1

I0tLLIL t

I

1wi

IFI 4 I

r

iiL -shy plusmn4 4 - H _

64211

I

L3

M -44

t

-i-

__

5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 4 ltSolubility of DOA and MTN in 733 R-45267 PPG-1225

A-5

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

9 -Ifan 88 (or 84) solids loaded 6 polymeric binder system will give acceptable physical properties then the

following formulations should be investigated

R-45 PPG1225 DA MT__N Al AP 1HM AN

10 4360 - -40 20 15 20 44 16 36 24 15 10 20 43

5360 - 40 20 15 10 10 44 1-6 36 24 15 10 10 53

15 10 20 3960 - 66 34 44 16 62 38 15 10 20 39

To properly evaluate these they should be compared to

AL AP HMK ANR-45 DOA 5360 60 15 10 20

10 53100 20 15 20

A quick look at some of the theoretical results to date indishycate that these substit-utions of - MTNfor Inert polymer -may result ina gain of about18 pounds seclb in impulse and a gain of 0001 poundscu in in density

C EJOHNSON

Copy to 205 2051BC 2051C1 TDI

A-6

PU BLICATION79-29

Page 5: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

-PREFACE

This final report describes the work done to develop candidate alternate propellants for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor

- This work was done by theSolid Propulsion and Environmental Systems Section Control and Energy Conversion Division of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville Alabama

iii

DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS

AD ammonium dichromate

AFRPL Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory

Ae exit area

Al aluminum

A1203 aluminum oxide

Afros Alrosperse

AN ammonium nitrate

AP ammonium perchlorate

BATES Ballistic Test and Evaluation System

C characteristic exhaust velocity

CU-0202 P copper chromite catalyst (trade name of Harshaw Chemical Co)

De exit diameter

DOA dioctyl adipate

DSC differential scanning calorimeter

Dt throat diameter

ESD electrostatic discharge

ETS Edwards Test Station

DTBH 25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone

eb elongation at break

em elongation at maximum stress

E expansion ratio

F thrust

F average thrust

FeF3 ferric fluoride

Fe203 iron oxide

FEM fluid energy mill

iv

HCI hydrogen chloride

HMX cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine

HTPB hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene-

IDP isodecyl pelargonate

IPDI isophorone diisocyanate

Isp0 specific impulse sea level optimum Pc 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) Isp ms measured specific impulse

it total impulse

KP potassium peroblorate

KN ratio of propellant burn area to throat area

kP kilopoise (1 kP = 100 N-sm2)

Mg magnesium

iam microns

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

n pressure exponent

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOS Naval Ordnance Station (Indian Head Md)

Pa ambient pressure

PHAN polybutadiene acrylic acid acrylonitrile terpolymer

Pe exit pressure

PC chamber pressure

PC average chamber pressure

PPG-1225 polypropylene glycol

Protech 2002 CSD proprietary metal-deactivating antioxidant (trade name)

r burning rate

hydroxy-terminated polyester

R-45M hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene

v

R-18

Sb tensile strength at break

SL opt sea level optimum

Sm maximum tensile strength

SRM solid rocket motor

ta action time

tb web burn time

tEWAT time at end of web action time

TMETN 111-trimethylolethane trinitrate

RAM-225 silicone oil in solvent (release agent)

UOP-36 N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine

UV ultraviolet

Nweight flow rate

W p Propellant weight

Zr Zirconium

p density

vi

ABSTRACT

This report documents the work done by the Caltech-Jet PropulsionLaboratory of NASA for the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA on a Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program The work was done as a Phase I follow-on effort to a previous Phase 0 feasibility study The program was designed to investigate three candidate propellant systems for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) which would eliminate or greatly reducethe amount of HC produced in the exhaust of the Shuttle SRM Ammonium nitrate was selected for consideration as the main oxidizer with ammonium perchlorate and the nitramine cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine (HMX) as secondary oxidizers The amount of ammonium perchlorate used was limited to an amount which would produce an exhaust containing no more than 3 HC1

Development work was carried out on three basic candidate propellantsystems (1) a mixed oxidizer of ammonium nitrate and ammonium perchlorate (2) a mixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate and HMX and (3) amixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate ammonium perchlorate and HMX All three systems contained 15 aluminum powder and had a total solids loading of 88 A urethane binder based on a hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene cured with a diisocyanate was selected as the binder system

The first and third propellant systems outlined above were developed to the point of successful scale-up and loading of 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes and successful test firing of 45-kg (10-1b) test motors and 32-kg(70-1b) BATES motors The second propellant system the ANHMX oxidizer system received only very limited development due to a out-back in both the funds and schedule time initially planned for this program All three propellants had satisfactory processing characteristics however at the 88 solids loading

The first and third propellant systems (the ANAP and the ANHMXAPoxidizer systems) were both also subjected to hazard testing and were demonstrated to conform to Class 2 hazard classification with HMX levels up to 17 wt in the HMX-containing propellant The second oxidizer combination system (the ANHMX) was not characterized as to hazards classification for the reasons mentioned earlier

The utilization of the low-Hl-producing alternate propellant was planned to be in ccmbinatidn with the current baseline PBAN propellantin a dual propellant design Therefore mutual compatibility between the two propellants was essential In order to lessen the severity of the burning rate requirement for the alternate propellant it was decided to decrease the burning rate specification for the PBAN baseline propellant to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) A modified baseline PBAN propellant formulation was therefore developed to conform to the lower burning rate specification It should be pointed out here that this modified baseline propellant system applies only to the dual propellantgrain design and does not relate in any way to the specifications of the present system being developed for the current Shuttle SRM The ballistic properties of the modified baseline PBAN propellant were demonstrated in several 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

vii

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION - 1-1

II SUMMARY- 2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPA1HTPB ------------------------- 2-2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXAlHTPB ------------------------ 2-2

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB --------------------- 2-2

D SYSTEM NO 4 MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE --------------- 2-3

III PHASE I PROGRAM -------------------------------------------- 3-1

A OBJECTIVE -------------------------------------------- 3-1

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS ---------------------------------- 3-1

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS ------------------------- 3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA ------------------------------------- 3-2

E PROGRAM APPROACH -------------------------------------- 3-2

F NOS PARTICIPATION ------------------------------------- 3-5

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE ------------ ---------------------- 3-5

H DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------- 3-6

IV UNWORKED AREAS --------------------------------------------- 4-1

V CONCLUSIONS ------------------------------------------------ 5-1

APPENDIX

A SOLUBILITY OF MTN IN HYDROCARBON BINDER -------------- A-i

Figures

3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB --------- 3-14

3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5 AP in ANAPAlHTPB --------- 315

ix

3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPAlHTPB -------------- 3-16

3-4 Specific Volume- of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature--------------------------------------- 3-26

3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ---------------------- 3-31

3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Gulf AN) ------------------- 3-39

3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-40

3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ---------------------------- 44

3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73 ---------------- 57

3-10 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74 ------ 3-58

3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTBP Propellants ---------------------------- 3-65

3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140 --------------- 74

3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-89

3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (HMX) Formulation ANH-9 ----------------------------------- 3-93

3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN ---------- 3-96

3-16 Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------ 3-98

3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92 -------------------------------------- 3-118

3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-11 ------------------------------------- 3-121

3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-l06 ------------------------------------- 3-125

x

3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant) Batch No SB-78 -------------------------------------- 3130

Tables

21 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ---------------------------------- 2-4

22 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-5

23 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-6

3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN ------------------------------------------- 3-7

3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN --------------------------------------- 3-9

3-3 Propellant Exhaust Composition ----------------------- 3-13

3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations ----------------------------------- 3-18

3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-20

3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-21

3-7 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received Properties ------------------------------------------- 3-23

3-8 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics -------------------------------------- 3-24

3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-28

3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P---------------------------------------- 3-32

3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-33

3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPA1HTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-36

3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-38

xi

3-14 Evaluation of-Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 42

3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 43

3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants -------------------------- 45

3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------- 48

3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------ 3-50

3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB

Propellants ------------------------------------------ 3-52

3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations --------- 54

3-21 BATES-Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant ---- 3-59

3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant ---- 3-61

3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Level Variations ----- 3-66

3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (2 Ballistic Modifier) ------------------- 3-68

3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation ---------- 3-70

3-26 BATES Motor Test Data Summary AN-71 Propellant ------ 3-72

3-27 AN4APAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goals --------------------------------------------- 3-75

3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests -Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------ 3-76

3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-77

3-30 ANHMXHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX) --------------- 3-79

3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------------ 3-81

3-32 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHNXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-82

xii

3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests ----------------------------------------shy 3-83

3-34 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) ------------------------------shy 3-85

3-35 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX) -----------------------------shy 3-87

3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)-----------shy 3-90

3-37 ANHNXADHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation ----------------------------- 3-91

3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX DOA Plasticizer)------------- 3-94

3-39 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX IDP Plasticizer)------------- 3-95

3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Particle Size Variation (MX) ------- ------------------------- 3-97

3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - BallisticModifier Particle Size Variation ------------------------------ 3-99

3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-101

3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data --------------------------------- 3-103

3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A With Class E)---------------------------------------- 3104

3-45 ANHMXAPAiHTPB Formulation - HMX Level (Class E HMX) ---------------------------------------- 3-106

t46-PL Hazard Test Data (Class E)----------------------- 3-107

M3-47 NOS Space ShuttleAlternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation ----------------------- 3-109

3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured -------- 3-111

3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

ANHMXAPHTPB Propellant Type ----------------------- 3-113

3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant ---- 3-119

3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-33 Propellant ---- 3-122

3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-18 Propellant ---- 3-126

xiii

3-53 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties-vs Goal ----------------------------------- 3-128

3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend --------------------------- --------------------- 3-129

xiv

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

This report presents results from the JPL study to investigatethe feasibility of developing an acceptable alternate propellant systemfor the Shuttle solid rocket motor (SEM) boosters based on the non-chlorine containing oxidizer ammonium nitrate (AN) The following basic criteria for this Phase 0 feasibility study were established by the NASA-MSFC

(1) A five-month feasibility study would be undertaken

(2) Any candidate propellants must conform to a hazards classishyfication of Class 2 as determined by card gap tests

(3) The propellant exhaust must not contain more than 3 HC Zero HCl was to be the goal

Following the above guidelines the JPL began a Phase Zero fiveshymonth feasibility program in September of 1974 (Ref 1) JPL was directedby MSFC to investigate four basic propellant systems mutually agreed upon by MSFC and JPL These four basic propellant systems were the following

(1) AN20 Albinder

(2) AN10 Albinder

(3) AN5 AP20 Albinder

(4) AN5 AP10 Albinder

Toward the end of the Phase 0 program the above four basic proshypellants had been developed to a point of scale-up of each formulation to 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes loading and test firing of 227-kg(5-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests Programresults at this point had demonstrated that

(1) Good processability of an 88 solids loaded ammonium nitrate propellant was possible (Previous to this workthe maximum solids achieved with ammonium nitrate systems was approximately 80)

(2) A few percent (5 to 10) of ammonium perchlorate as a co-oxidizer in the ammonium nitrate systems was essential to satisfactory aluminum combustion

(3) An aluminum content of 20 in the ammonium nitrate system was considerably above optimum for maximum delivered specific impulse

With these results serving as new guidelines a fifth formulation was developed and evaluated in BATES motor tests This propellant formulation

1-1

was an 88 solids formulation of the following composition 63 AN10 AP15 Al12 HTPB binder

The main conclusion drawn from the results of this five-month feasibility study was that with the necessary time and funds the develshyopment of an alternate propellant system for the Shuttle SRM based largely on ammonium nitrate as the oxidizer was feasible The fifth propellant described above was selected as a baseline candidate system and served as the basis for establishing the goals and criteria for a Phase I follow-on effort to this feasibility study

The concept for the utilization of the alternate propellant was a dual propellant solid rocket motor -The Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor would be manufactured containing the alternate low-HCl propellant first as an outer layer of propellant followed by an inner layer of the current PBAN propellant modified to the new burning rate requirement During a Shuttle vehicle launch the baseline PBAN propellant would burn for the first phase of Shuttle Booster operation At an altitude of approxshyimately 1981 km (65000 ft) the PBAN propellant would be expended and the burning transitioned into the low-HCl (less than 3 by weight of the exhaust products) alternate propellant The feasibility of a satisshyfactory transition from a propellant with an all-ammonium perchlorate oxidizer to one consisting primarily of ammonium nitrate oxidizer was also demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by successfully manufacshyturing and test firing a dual propellant BATES motor charge

1-2

SECTION II

SUMMARY

This summary is a general over-view of the Alternate Propellant Program A more detailed summary of each respective area of effort is included in the main body of this report The primary objective of the program was to develop a candidate alternate propellant for the Shuttle SRM boosters which would eliminate or minimize the HCl in the exhaust from the solid propellant boosters during operations above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude A set of program constraints was defined to serve as guidelines for the Phase I program effort Among the constraints was the requirements of a Class 2 hazards classification for any candidate propellant The detailed constraints have been outlined in the foregoing pages Along with these program guidelines specific goals were estabshylished that were as follows

(1) Propellant burning rate = 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) Propellant pressure exponent of the burning rate lt 042

(3) Vacuum delivered specific impulse gt 2402 N-skg (245 s) at an expansion ratio of 716

(4) Matched burning rates of the alternate propellant and the baseline PBAN propellant system at 400 Ncm2 (580 psia)

(5) HCl content of the propellant exhaust lt 3

Goal (4) also introduced the requirement of modifying the burning rate of the existing Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a burning rate requirement consistent with the foregoing goals for the alternate proshypellant The burning rate requirement for the modified Shuttle baseline propellant PBAN propellant was established to be 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) chamber pressure

Three basic propellant systems were defined as candidate systems to be developed within these constraints and guidelines The three systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

Based on the results from the Phase 0 program that preceded this Phase I program it was established that the aluminum content would be held constant at 15 wt in all formulations Also the AP content of the No 1 and No 3 system was to be 10 A status summary of each of the three alternate propellant systems and the modified PBAN Shuttle baseline propellant follows

2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPAlHTPB

This propellant system contains 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) and 15 aluminum powder The development has progressed through the static testing of 32-kg (70-1b) propellant charges in the BATES motor static testing being limited to sea level conditions A vacuum delivered Isp at an expansion ratio eof 70 corrected from the sea level data of 2281 N-skg (2326 s) has been demonstrated This measured value of Is is equivalent to 888 of the theoretical value at the test condiions A burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) of 0546 cms (0215 ins) with a pressure exponent of the burning rate of 0278 has also been demonstrated with BATES motor firings As can be seen the Isp and burning rate goals have not been attained whereas the pressure exponent goal has been exceeded by a considerable margin It is doubtful at this point whether the Isp or the burning rate goals can be achieved with this basic system within the present program conshystraints One way of achieving the ballistic goals would be to increase the AP content of this propellant To do so however would increase the HC content of the exhaust above that of the current exhaust conshystraint of not more than 3 wt of HC1

In order to meet the specific impulse and burning rate goals a propellant formulation containing 20 wt of AP was developed and tested first in 45-kg (10-1b) motors followed by two 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings The specific impulse goal of 2402 N-hkg (245 s) was attained with this propellant The burning rate at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) exceeded the 089-cms (035-ins) goal A burning rate of 097 cms (038 ins) was measured The pressure exponent measure was 048 which is higher than the goal However it is believed that this pressure exponent can be reduced The HC1 content in the exhaust at an expansion ratio of 716 is calculated to be 6 wt This 6 HC1 still represents an 80 reduction in the HC1 content from that of the baseline PBAN propellant system The-hazards classification of the ANAPA1HTPB system is Class 2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXA1HTPB

This system contains 15 aluminum also but no AP Due to a cutback in projected program funds however thedecision was made to discontinue the development of this system This decision was made very early in the development phase of this propellant and therefore no useful ballistic data is available at this time

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB

Of the three alternate propellant systems initially planned for development this system is the best candidate to date for meeting all the program goals Theoretical calculations showed that the maximum specific impulse for this propellant system was in the range of 170 to 175 HMX (Table 3-2) Therefore this system with three levels of HMX was developed scaled up to 113-kg (250-1b) mixes and loaded and test fired in 45-kg (10-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b)

2-2

BATES motor firing Of the three levels of HMX evaluated in motor firing the highest ISD was measured with the formulation containing 15 wt HMX showing that the experimental optimum HMX level- is somewhat less than 17 wt for this system The 15 and 17 wt HMX formulations were demonstrated to be Class 2 whereas the 175 wt HMX propellant was borderline Class 7

Preliminary results from Crawford Bomb burning rates showed a burning rate of 0950 cms (0374 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) for the 17 wt HMX formulation Time did not permit verifying this burning rate in motor tests prior to committing to the scale-up and loading of the 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors However indications -were that the 089-cms (035-ins) burning rate would be achieved in motor tests with 3 ballistic modifier in the formulation -- a cutback from the 4 in the other two HMX formulations In the interest of time a reduction in the ballistic modifier (a mixed burning rate catalyst) of 1 was made in the scale-up propellant batch from which the BATES motors were loaded Unfortunately this was too large a reduction in modifier and test results from firing the BATES motors showed a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) for the 17 wt HMX formulation (ANH-33)

The formulations of the five candidate alternate propellants and the modified PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 2-1 Table 2-2 lists the theoretical ballistic properties of the six propelshylants and also the HCi and A1203 (particulates) contents Table 2-3 summarizes the measured performance values as determined by BATES motor firings The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions with nozzle expansion ratios of 716 The measured sea level values were then corrected to vacuum values by the following equation

PeAe I vac ms =-I5 pact ms

D SYSTEM NO i MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE

The work statement of this Alternate Propqllant Program also called for modifying the current Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) while not changing the major ballistic properties such as I__ of the system This effort has been completed and the 081-cms (032-ins) burning rate met and demonstrated in motor firings The desired modification was accomplished by removing the iron oxide burningshyrate catalysts (Fe203 ) and adjusting the particle size blend of the oxidizer The burning-rate equation for this modified baseline is r = 00668 Pc0 228

A detailed discussion of the three candiate alternate propellant systems as well as the total program effort follows

2-3

Ingredients

Solids

AN

AP

HMX (Class E)

Al

Fe203

AD

CU-0202 P

Binder

HTPBe

PBANd

Table 2-1 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

TP-H1148a AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

86 88 88 88 88 88

-- 5900 5100 44o0 4300 4150

6960 1000 2000 1000 1000 1000

-- -- -- 1500 1700 1750

1600 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

040 b -- -- -- -shy

-- 200 -- 200 100 200

-- 200 200 200 200 200

-- 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

1400 -- -- -shy

aCurrent Shuttle baseline propellant also to be adjusted

bTo be adjusted

CCured with a diisocyanate (IPDI)

dCured with an epoxy (Der-331)

Table 2-2 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Parameter TP-H1148 AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Tf K 3471 2695 2845 2748 2765 2756

Te K

C ms (fts)

Isp0 N-skg (s)

2327

1371 (5155)

25723 (2623)

1563

1481 (4860)

24203 (2468)

1678

1568 (4949)

24624 (2511)

1570

1505 (4937)

24507 (2499)

1575

1513 (4965)

24634 (2512)

1571

1509 (4950)

24556 (2504)

U Is vac (a E 716)N-skg (s)

27135 (2767)

25684 (2619)

26115 (2663)

26007 (2652)

26144 (2666)

26066 (2658)

HC in exhaust 209 303 61 303 303 303

A1203 in exhaust 302 283 283 283 283 28

Table 2-3 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Ballistic Property

Program Goal

AN-25

Candidate Propellant Test Resultsa

AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

C ms (fts) - 1432 1460 1450 1431 1415

(4700) (4791) (4759) (4694) (4643)

C efficiency - 953 972 962 945 945

Isp vac at E = 716 N-skg (s)

_gt2403 (245)

22849 (2330)

24026 (2450)

23752 (2422)

23183 (2364)

23173 (2363)

Isp efficiency 888 923 912 887 8901

Burning rate cms at 690 Ncm2 (ins at 1000 psia)

gt_089 (035)

053 (021)

097 (0 38 )b

079 (031)

081 (032)

074 (029)

Pressure exponent n lt042 028 048 031 037 031

Hazard

classification 2 2 2 2 2 7 (marginal)

aTest data from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings at PC 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

bData point based on 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

SECTION III

PHASE I PROGRAM

A OBJECTIVE

The program objective of the Phase I program the results of which are documented in this report was to develop an alternate propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster motors which would eliminate or minimize the H1 in the exhaust from the motors

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS

The Phase I development effort was conducted within some very specific constraints These program constraints were

(1) Minimize the design impact on the present solid booster

(2) Eliminate or minimize Llt 3) the HC1 release from the booster motors during operation above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude

(3) Any candidate alternate propellant must confori to a Class 2 hazards classification

(4) The program was to be conducted within government as a contingency

(5) The payload schedule and cost impact of the Phase I effort on the Shuttle project were to be assessed concurrently

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS

Three basic pandidate propellant systems were selected for consideration in this development program These propellant systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

In addition to the above three completely new propellant systems a modification of the current baseline PBAN propellant was to be made This modification consisted of adjusting the burning rate of the PBAN propellant to a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) [The baseline PBAN propellant burning rate was approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)]

3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA

As has been stated the criteria for the Phase I program effort was established as a result of the Phase 0 feasibility study The scope of effort and propellant performance goals thus established were as follows

(1) Initiate the development of three basic candidate alternate propellant systems

(2) Modify the current Shuttle baseline PHAN propellant to meet

the new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins)

(3) The propellant performance goals were

(a) Burning rate = 689 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(b) Pressure exponent lt 042

(c) Delivered vacuum specific impulse at an expansion ratio of 716 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(d) Theburning rates of the candidate alternate propellants and the Shuttle baseline PBAN propellant should be matched at a pressure of 400 Ncm 2 (580 psia)

(e) HCI in the exhaust _ 3

(4) The development program was to include in addition to - the above

(a) Processing studies

(b) Physical property studies

(c) ropellant aging studies

(d) Propellant hazards classification testing

(e) Propellant performance testing

(f) Investigation of the compatibility between the alternate propellant and the current baseline PBAN propellant and between the alternate propellant and the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) insulation

E PROGRAM APPROACH

The following outline details the general approach taken in the investigation of the various aspects of this program

3-2

1 Theoretical Studies

() Maximize delivered specific impulse at 88 solids

(a) Aluminum content

(b) HMX content

(c) High-energy plasticizer content (TMETN)

2 Burning Rate Studies 089 cms (035 ins) Goal

(1) Particle size blend of oxidizer

(2) Investigate and compare catalyst type and concentration

(a) Fe203

(b) Ferrocene

(c) Milori blue

(d) CU-0202 P shy

(e) Inert plasticizer level (DOA)

(f) High-energy plasticizer (TMETN)

(g) HMX

(h) Zirconium powder

(i) Other

Burning rates to be determined via Crawford Bomb strand burning and 5 x 6 motor tests

3 Physical Property Studies

(1) Binder stoichiometry

(2) Plasticizer level and type

(a) Free plasticizer

(b) Internal plasticizer (chemically bonded)

(3) Degree of crosslinking

(4) Cure time and temperature

3-3

Evaluate properties Tensile strength

Elongation

Modulus

Hardness

Density

4 Processing Studies

(1) Process variables

(a) Mixer speeds

(b) Mix duration

(c) Ingredient addition sequence

(d) Other

5 Compatibility Studies

(1) PBAN propellant to alternate propellant bond

(a) As cured surfaces

(b) Machined surfaces

(2) Alternate propellant to insulation bond

6 Safety Hazard Tests

(I) Card gap

(2) Impact

(3) Auto-ignition shy

(4) Blast~ng cap

(5) Friction sensitivity

(6) Spark sensitivity

3-4

7 Aging Studies

(1) Propellant aging-physical properties

(a) Ambient temperature

(2) Propellant-propellant bond

(a) Ambient temperature

8 Motor Testing

(1) 5 x 6 motors - pressure only

(2) BATES motors - pressure and thrust

9 Shuttle Baseiine Propellant Modification

Adjust burning rate to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

F NOS PARTICIPATION

The Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head Maryland wLs funded by JPL to participate in certain aspects of the Alternate Propellant Program This funding of the NOS was a relatively low level of funding and designed to support the program through the investigation of certain very specific tasks The general areas of the NOS participation were

(1) Investigation of the solubility of the high-energy plasticizer TMETN in (a) R-45 HTPB polymer and (b) R-45 HTPB polymerDOA plasticizer

(2) Determine the limits of TMETN for a Class 2 propellant in an (a) all AN propellant system (b) ANAP system and (c) ANAPHMX system

(3) Investigation of the limits of HMX Ior a Class 2 inert binder propellent

(4) Hazards testing of candidate propellant formulations

(5) Investigation of HMX and AP particle size ef~eots and ballistic modifier effects on candidate propellant ballistics

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE

The Phase I effort of the Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program began April 1 1975 as an 18-month program The program schedule was later revised and lengthened to a 30-month program Much later in the program (April 1976) following several revisions to the program

3-5

schedule the planned scope of effort was reduced and the schedule cut to

conclude the program on June 30 1976 This reduction in scope and schedule

time became necessary due to a cut in the anticipated program funds

H DISCUSSION

Theoretical Studies

As has been discussed in the introduction to this report the Phase 0 feasibility study (Ref 1) results established the basis for

the Phase I effort Theoretical studies had been conducted during the Phase 0 work analyzing the effects of solids loading oxidizer ratios

binder composition etc on the thermoballistic properties of the proshy

pellant types under consideration Therefore at the start of the Phase I

program effort the guidelines for formulating the candidate alternate propellants to be developed were fairly well defined Consequently the

theoretical studies reported here involved only formulations with certain

constant parameters such as 88 total solids 15 aluminum and a binder based on plasticized HTPB

Table 3-1 gives summary tabulations of the primary thermoballistic properties of a number of candidate formulations containing AN AP and

HMX as oxidizers and the binder plasticized with the high-energy plasticizer

TMETN Iron oxide at the 1 level was included as a burning rate modifier The relevant Shuttle SRM baseline PBAN propellant properties are also shown in the table for reference As can be seen the formulation containing 25 HMX 10 AP and 25 TMETN plasticizer in the binder (12 HTPB binder) matches within 49 N-skg (05-s) specific impulse to that of the Shuttle baseline propellant That formulation however would be a Class 7 proshy

pellant and therefore could not be considered as a candidate

Table 3A2 shows the effects of varying the AP content the HMX conshy

tent and the type and content of the burning rate modifiers A combination

of ammonium dichromate (AD) and copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was selected

as the primary burning rate modifiers for this work Approximately two seconds of impulse difference is calculated for equal amounts of Fe203 and mixed AD and CU-0202 P (4 Fe203 versus 2 AD and 2 CU-0202 P) The calculations also show that for the 88 total solids system with 15 aluminum and 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) tpe theoretical optimum amount of HMX for maximum impulse is in the range of 17 to 175 The

experimental optimum HMX level for maximum delivered IsD however

appears to be something less than 17 wt This is eviaenced by the results from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests of propellants containing 150 170 and 175 HMX The measured ballistics of these formulations

are tabulated in Table 2-3 in the summary section of this report As will be seen in Table 2-3 the highest measured Isp with an HMX formulation

was with FormulationNumber ANH-12 which contains 150 HMX

These theoretical calculations referred to above were made using

a JPL computer program based on the minimization of free energy to

calculate both the equilibrium and frozen flow thermoballistic properties

of chemical compositions

3-6

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN

Formulationa Ballistics

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

AN AP HIX Al

TMETN in

Binder Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P T0 K C

ms (fts)

T (Sea Lcve Optimum) N-skg (s)

Vac 1 (c = 7)

N-skg (a)

Shuttle PBAN Baseline Propellantb(Density 17714 gcm 3 00640 lbin3) 3515 1578 (5176) 25752 (2626) 27136 k2767)

62 10 0 15 0 1 2825 1503 (4931) 24536 (2502) 25966 (2648)

62 10 0 15 10 1 2902 1511 (4956) 24674 (2516) 26095 (2661)

62 10 0 15 20 1 2977 1518 (4980) 24791 (2528) 26213 (2673)

62 10 0 15 25 1 2982 1521 (4991) 24850 (2534) 26272 (2679)

62 0 10 15 20 1 2910 1526 (5005) 24870 (2536) 26321 (2684)

52 0 20 15 20 1 2973 1546 (5072) 25174 (2567) 26645 (2717)

47 0 25 15 20 1 3005 1557 (5108) 25321 (2582) 26900 (2743)

62 0 10 15 25 1 2916 1529 (5016) 24929 (2542) 26380 (2690)

52 0 20 15 25 1 2978 1550 (5084) 25233 (257 ) 26704 (2723)

47 0 25 15 25 1 3010 1561 (5120) 25380 (2588) 26860 (2739)

52 10 10 15 10 1 2964 1532 (5028) 24968 (2546) 26419 (2694)

42 10 20 15 10 1 3027 1554 (5100) 25272 (2577) 26753 (2728)

37 10 25 15 10 1 3658 1565 (5136) 25419 (2592) 26909 (2744)

52 10 10 15 20 1 3039 1540 (5052) 25095 (2559) 26519 (2706)

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN (Continuation 1)

Formulationa Ballistics -

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier TMETN Is (Sea Vac L

in C Level Optimum) (E = 7 AN AP HMX Al Binder Fe203 AD CU-0202 P Tc K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

42 10 20 15 20 1 3102 1562 (5124) 25399 (2590) 26870 (2740)

37 10 25 15 20 1 3134 1573 (5160) 25546 (2605) 27037 (2757)

52 10 10 15 25 1 3044 1543 (5063) 25154 (2565) 26596 (2712)

42 10 20 15 25 1 3107 1565 (5135) 25448 (2595) 26929 (2746)

37 10 25 15 25 1 3138 1576 (5171) 25595 (2610) 27086 (2762)

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

bThe Shuttle baseline propellant has 16 Al 86$ total solids

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN

Formulation ballistics

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids)

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Pc = 690 Ncm

2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Moaifier

DensitygcM3

(lbin3 ) AN AP HMX Al

PropellantFormulation

No Fe2 0q AD CU-0202 P To K

C

Ms (fts)

Is (SeaLevel Optimum)

N-skg (s)

Vac ISp(E 7)

N-skg (s)

16634 (00601) 62 10 - 15 1 2728 1500 (4920) 24468 (2495) 25950 (2647)

0 16717 (00604) 61 10 - 15 2 2716 1490 (4887) 24320 (2480) 25801 (2631)

16800 (00607) 56 15 - 15 2 2778 1497 (4913) 24438 (2492) 25929 (2644)

16911 (00611) 51 20 - 15 2 2839 1505 (4938) -24566 (2505) 26046 (2656)

16994 (00614) 46 25 - 15 2 2904 1512 (4962) 24674 (2516) 26164 (2668)

17105 (00618) 41 30 - 15 2 2969 1519 (4985) 24791 (252b) 26282 (2680)

17188 (00621) 36 35 - 15 2 3032 1526 (5007) 24899 (2539) 24390 (2691)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 4 2692 1469 (4820) 24016 (2449) 25478 (2598)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 (AN-25) - 2 2 2695 1481 (4860) 24203 (2468) 25684 (2619)

16745 (0n605) 51 20 - 15 - 2 2841 1513 (4965) 24693 (2518) 26194 (26741)

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 1)

Pl1si~sFormulitiona

Theoreticl Equilibrium Flow Calculations = Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant IS (Sea Vac I gcm3 Formulation C Love Optimum) (c = 7) (lbin 3 ) AN PP HmX Pi No Fe20q AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg ()

16911 (00611) 51 20 15 (AN-71) 2 2845 1508 (4949) 24624 (2511) 26115 (266-)

16828 (00608) 51 20 15 1 1 2841 1511 (4957) 24654 (2514) 26145 (2666)

17160 (00620) 44 10 15 15 4 2748 1492 (4895) 24320 (2480) 25811 (2632)

17216 (00622) 42 10 17 15 4 2756 1495 (4906) 24360 (2484) 25850 (263b)

- ) 415 10 175 15 4 2581 1500 (4921) 25850 (2636)

) 40 10 190 15 4 2794 1495 (4906) 257b2 (2629)

39 10 200 15 4 2776 1490 (4888) 25723 (2623)

17049 (00616) 44 10 15 15 (ANH-12) - 2 2 2748 1504 (4937) 24507 (2499) 2007 (2652)

17077 (00617) 42 10 17 15 2 2 2754 1508 (4947) 24546 (2503) 26056 (2657)

17049 (00616) 4 10 17 15 (ANH-33) 1 2 2765 1513 (4965) 24634 (2512) 26145 (2666)

L

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 2)

BallisticsFormulations

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant is (Sea Vac Is gcm3 Formulation C Level Optimum) M (ibin3 ) AN AP HMX Al No Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

16828 (00608) 44 10 17 15 - - 2779 1525 (5005) 24781 (2527) 26311 (2683)

16994 (00614) 44 10 17 15 - 2 2784 1518 (4981) 24723 (2521) 26243 (2676)

16911 (00611) 44 10 17 15 - 1 1 2778 1522 (4994) 24752 (2524) 26272 (2679)

17077 1509 (4950) 24556 (2504) 26066 (2658)(00617) 415 10 175 15 (ANH-18) - 2 2 2757

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

2 Exhaust Products

The exhaust compositions of the five candidate propellants listed in Table 2-I in the report summary and that of the Shuttle PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 3-3 The exhaust species are shown as weight percent of the total exhaust and the exhaust composition is that at the exit plane of the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 716 calculated as the equilibrium composition

3 Combustion and Burning Rate

Two problems which were anticipated and confirmed as problems early in the Phase 0 program were low combustion efficiency and low burning rates of the aluminized ammonium nitrate propellant These subjects are discussed individually in the sections covering the different propellant systems However a few brief general comments will be made here

It was demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by way of 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings that a few percent of AP was essential in the ammonium nitrate propellants in order to effect satisfactory combustion of aluminum An 88 solids 15 Al ammonium nitrate formulation containing no AP was test fired in several 227-kg (5-1b) test motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors In each case large amounts of aluminum slag remained in the motors after firing Molten aluminum could be seen being ejected through the nozzle during the test firings Greatly improved combustion resulted from incorporating 5 AP in the formulation The incorporation of 10 AP resulted in virtually zero slag remaining in the motor Therefore 10 AP was selected as a standard for this Alternate Propellant Program The three photographs of BATES motor tests (Figs 3-1 to 3-3 containing 0 5 and 10 AP respectively in the formulations) show rather dramatically the effect of AP on the combustion The glowing streams in the 0 and 5 AP firings (greatly reduced in the 5 AP test however) are produced by molten aluminum

A second technique investigated as a combustion improvement techshynique was the incorporation of zirconium metal powder into the propellant The basis for this idea was due to the fact that zirconium powder has a much lower ignition temperature than that of aluminum powder and has a relatively high heat of combustion The idea was to take advantage of this lower ignition temperature of zirconium powder to facilitate the ignition and burning of the aluminum by igniting and burning and thereby supplying sufficient added heat to the system to more effectively ignite and burn the aluminum This technique however did not demonstrate any real improvement in the measured performance but rather a decrease and was therefore not investigated beyond the initial BATES motor test firings

3-12

Table 3-3 Propellant Exhaust Comsition

Propellant PBAN AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Solids 86 88 88 88 88 88 AP 6960 10 20 10 10 10 HMX - - - 15 17 175

Tel K 2327 1563 1678 1570 1575 1571

MoI Wt of Products 2756 2309 2360 2285 2275 2281

Speciesa wt

AlCl 00094 - - - -AIC10 00086 - - - shy

-A1C12 00098 - - -

AICI3 00053 - - - shy-AlHO2 00012 - - -

Cl 02961 - 00007 - -

CO 232928 189953 191619 256367 264700 267944 39486 61302 58679 46105 44899 42773CO2

Cr203(L) - 10020 02090 10020 06050 10020 Cu - 00038 00184 00044 00044 00044 CuC(L) - 14543 11840 14513 14475 14513 CUM - 00891 04188 00901 00940 00901

-Fe 00134 - - -

FeC12 05998 00621 00621 00596 00583 00583 H 00191 00001 00002 00001 00001 00001 H2 18804 29663 27301 32744 32941 33221

aCl 209284 30346 60149 30357 30346 30357 HO 00321 - 00002 - -

H20 101499 154534 157204 95971 91721 86539 85862 221739 203436 225998 228954 226707N2

NH3 - 00905 00003 00005 00005 00005 NO 00018 05780 - - shy

0 00005 shy02 00003 - - shy

A1203(C) 302097 283418 283418 283418 283418 283418

aConcentrations less than 1 x I0-5 moles100 g exhaust are omitted

L = liquid C = crystalline

3-13

ft

iI

Figure 3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

Imm

Figure 3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5$ AP in ANAPA1HTPB

go

Figure 3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

A third technique investigated was that of using a chromate-coated aluminum powder in place of the standard aluminum powder This techniquealso failed to produce increased combustion efficiency of the aluminum in the propellant

Specific burning rate subjects are discussed in the discussions of the different propellant systems however some general comments will be made here As can be seen in Table 3-2 the proper selection of a burning rate catalyst must be based on more than burning-rate considerations when a rigorous effort is made to maximize specific impulse As can be seen a significant difference is calculated for the theoretical Isp between incorporating the different burning rate modifiers at the same concentration Also the modifier used can have a strong effect on the physical properties of the propellant

4 Physical Properties

This effect of specific ingredients on the physical properties of an ammonium nitrate system arises from the fact that chemical reactions other than the normal curing reactions between the prepolymer and the curing agent enter into the overall curing reactions In most compositepropellant systems the physical properties are determined largely -in addition to binder type and solids loading by the degree of crosslinkingand completeness of reactions with available cure site6 In the ammonium nitrate system however it appears that free protons produced in the system react with the double bond in the prepolymer (HTPH) backbone causing crosslinks at these sites Ammonium dichromate appears to contribute in a greater way to this crosslinking at the double bonds than some of the other burning-rate modifiers investigated On the other hand the AD subtracts less from the calculated Isp The formulating and development of an AN system therefore is complicated by these considerations The physical property problems are greatly complicated Nonconventional techniques must be found and employed in the physical property considerations in order to develop satisfactory control of adequate physical properties

5 High-Energy Plasticizer Studies

One of the approaches investigated on the program was use of high-energy plasticizers td achieve higher delivered specific impulse propellants A review of available nitrate ester plasticizers indicated that TMETN (111-trimethylolethane trinitrate) was the most promising candidate This selection was made on the basis of overall considerations of compatibility performance cost and availability Theoretical performance calculations on some typical propellant formulations with 20 wt TMETN are shown in Table 3-4

Propellant development work on this effort was done by NOS (NavalOrdnance Station Indian Head Md) Two basic formulations were inshyvestigated one with no ammonium perchlorate and one with 5 wt ammonium perchlorate A polyester (R-18) binder was selected and initial development work was done at the 82 wt solids level with 1200 wt TMETN Small

3-17

Table 3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations

Formulation 1-A

Ammonium nitrate 360 Aluminum 180 R-18 60 HMX 100 TMETN 200 Ammonium perchlorate 100

1000

Density gcm3 17300 (lbin3 ) (00625)

Flame temperature 34314 K (OF) (5723)

Vacuum specific 27115 impulse N-skg (s) (2765) E = 716

Pc 483 Ncm2

(700 psi)

Weight percent 278 HC1 in exhaust

1-B

310 180 60 100 200 150

1000

17411 (00629)

3481 (5806)

27155 (2769)

417

1-C 1-D

410 410 180 180 60 60 50 -

200 200 100 150

1000 1000

17217 17244 (00622) (00623)

3410 3430 (5678) (5714)

26988 26880 (2752) (2741)

278 416

3-18

mixes were made to check ingredient compatibility and propellant laboratorysafety properties Results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-5 along with the formulations These tests indicated that the ingredients were compatible and safety properties were adequate The two formulations were then scaled up into larger batches and card gap samples were loaded and tested Both formulations were uncastable so that the card gapsamples had to be hand packed The card gap test results are shown in Table 3-5 and suggest both formulations meet the card gap requirementsfor Class 2 propellant (lt 70 cards) However these results may be biased to give lower card gap sensitivity because of voids in the samples

Four additional formulations were then evaluated at the reduced solids level of 74 wt to improve propellant castability The polyester(R-18) binder system was used and TMETN level was held constant at 20 wt The variations made with these four formulations were variations in the levels of HMX AP and AN All the formulations were eastable and card gap samples were prepared and tested on each The details of the formulations and card gap test results are summarized in Table 3-6 General conclusion from this work was that for this propellant systemwith 20 wt TMETN a maximum level of 5 to 10 wt HMX can be used and meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

Work with the polyester (R-18) binder system was terminated and shifted to the HTPB (R-45) binder system when the early experimentalwork indicated that program goals would probably not be achieved with the polyester (R-18) Initial tests by NOS showed the solubility of TMETN (also referred to as MTN) in R-45 at 210 C (700F) was less than 1 wt They then conducted cosolubility studies with other plasticizersComplete details of these studies are shown in Appendix A Summary conclusions from this effort are as follows

(1) R-18 and adiponitrile are not soluble in R-45M

(2) DOA is more effective as a coplasticizer than TP90B and PPG-1225

(3) Maximum theoretical performance gains possible by replaceshyment of DOA with TMETN within solubility limits are about 176 N-skg (18-s) impulse and 0028 gcm 3 (O001 lbin 3 ) density

A decision was made to terminate further work with TMETN at this point in the program Primary reason for the decision was that the small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justifythe potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradation

6 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrates

An evaluation of available ammonium nitrate (AN) types was made to provide a basis for selection of the AN in development of the propellant formulations Ammonium nitrate is the major oxidizer used in all

3-19

Table 3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations with TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids)

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder TMETN Aluminum HMX Ammonium perchlorate Ammonium nitrate

Initial card gap tests

0 Cards 35 Cards 50 Cards

70 Cards

Laboratory safety tests

Impact mm (3 consecutive positive values 5-kg weight)

Sliding friction kg (ib) 24 ms (8 fts)

Electrostatic discharge- J

(5000 V)

NOS SCC-74-69 NOS SCC-74-074

600 600 1200 1200 1800 1800 2000 1000 - 500

4400 4900

10000 10000

-pos

pos pos pos neg neg

150 -125 150 200

gt-435 (gt_960) 435 ( 960) A35 (gt_960)

gt435 (gt960)

2125 125 gt125 L125

3-20

Table 3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids)

Formulation No NOS Mod I NOS Mod II NOS 1C NOS ID

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder -600 600 600 600 TMETN 2000 2000 2000 2000 Aluminum 1800 1800 1800 1800 HMX 2000 2000 -500 Ammonium perchlorate - 500 1000 1500 Ammonium nitrate 3600 3100 4100 4100

10000 10000 IbO00 10000

No 8 Blasting Cap neg neg -

Test

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards -shy pos 40 Cards pos neg

(42 cards) 50 Cards pos pos neg 60 Cards neg 65 Cards pos 70 Cards pos neg neg 75 Cards pos -

80 Cards pos - -

85 Cards - Ipos and I neg - -

90 Cards 2 pos - -

100 Cards pos I pos and I neg - -

112 Cards pos - -

120 Cards pos neg - -

121 Cards 1 pos and 2 neg - -

123 Cards neg - - -

125 Cards neg 150 Cards neg

3-21

three of the basic alternate propellants ANAPAlHTPB ANHMXAlHTBP

and ANHMXAPAlHTPB

Some of the problems associated with making propellants with AN are

(1) Low true density of AN (1725 gcm3 ) which limits solids loading for processable propellants

(2) Large size and hollowness of unground as-received prills

(3) Hygroscopicity of AN and particle agglomeration

(4) Slow burning rates

(5) Low specific impulse

(6) Volumetric changes with crystal phase changes

The following three types of AN were selected for evaluation

(1) Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated

(2) U S Agri-Chemicals industrial with anti-caking agent

(3) Monsanto industrial E-2 phase stabilized

These three were selected because they are generally representative of what is currently available from industry Table 3-7 compares the as-received properties of the three AN types Table 3-8 compares some of the processing characteristics of the three AN types

The Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated has the advantage of having no additives that generally tend to reduce propellant specific impulse However this AN has a soft prill that breaks readily and is very hygroscopic Both the unground and ground materials agglomerate severely even in controlled environments These difficulties in controlling particle-size distribution with this type AN pose real problems in achieving and reproducing maximum specific impulse and burning rate in processable propellants Cost of this type AN is higher than the other two types because it is a specialty product

The U S Agri-Chemicals industrial AN has a 043 to 077 wt coating of anticaking agent on the prills The coating consists of 90 talc and 10 Petro-Ag It keeps the material free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture In addition it makes a harder prill which does not break readily Good control of particle-size distribution is possible with this type of AN Consequently processable propellants are achievable with reproducible burning rates and delivered specific impulse

3-22

Oc Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received PropertiesTable 3-7

Vendor

ltC7

Type

Appearance

Total nitrogen

Approx assay

Moisture (when manufactured)

to Additive

Screen size (US Sieve Series)

Loose bulk density gcm3

3)(lbft

Prill Density gcm3

Approx cost kg (lb)

aphase stabilized

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticakang Agent)

White prills

None

254 (115)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

industrial (Coated with Anticaking Agent)

White free-flowing spheres

(prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

025 wt min

043 to 077 wt $ coating bagent

00 wt max retained on No 6 50 wt $ max through No 6 and on a No 8 940 wt max through No 6 and on No 20 10 wt max through No 20

154

154 (7 0 )d

Monsanto Agricultural Products Co

inoustrial E-2

Pearly white free-flowing

spheres (prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

05 wt min

04 to 06 wt E-2 additive c

10 wt max retained on No 6 100 wt through No 14

09611 (60)

161

a157 (71

b90 tale and 10 petroleum agent eMgo according to US Patent 3030179

taxesdBulk costs - carload quantities typically 54431-kg (60-ton) minimum Does not include freight or

Table 3-8

Property

Handling characteristics to unground

Particle size after tumble drying unground

Grinding characteristics particle size after coarse grinding in Raymond hammer mill with 4000-rpm hammer speed 160-rpm feed speed 032-cm (18-in) screen

Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticaking Agent)

Soft prill breaks easily Very hygroscopic and agglom-

erates severely

104 to 1000 pm

480 pm (avg)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

Industrial (Coated with Anttcaking Agent)

Fairly hard prill does not break readily Remains free

flowing with reasonable pro-tection from moisture

840 to 3360 pm

2200 pm (avg)

140 um (avg)

Monsanto AgraculLural Products Co

Industrial E-2 (Phase-Stabilized)

Very hard and dense prill does not bread readily

Remains free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture

1410 to 3360 pm

2000 pm (avg)

2bO pm (avg)

The Monsanto industrial E-2 phase-stabilized AN has 04-to 06 wt E-2 additive This material is MgO which pbase stabilizes-the ammonium nitrate according to U S Patent 3030179 (assigned to Monsanto Company) Figure 3-4 shows the specific volume of Monsanto E-2 AN and of AN that has not been phase stabilized versus temperature The solid line is for the Monsanto E-2 AN and the dotted line is for the AN that has not been phase stabilized Note that the volumetric changes associated with Phase III have been eliminated in the phase-stabilizedMonsanto E-2 AN Comparing Monsanto E-2 AN with the other types inTable 3-7 and 3-8 the following conclusions can be made

(1) Monsanto E-2 AN has a higher prill density than U S Agri-Chemicals AN (161 gcm3 versus 154 gcm3 )

(2) Because Monsanto E-2 is a very hard anddense prill normal handling and tumble drying does not significantly break prills Particle-size distribution remains in the range of 1410 to 3360 pm with an average size of about 2000 m

(3) Coarse grinds of Monsanto E-2 AN have an average particle size of about 280 pm which is in the size range (200 to 400 pm) for better fit with the other solids

(4) The Monsanto E-2 AN remains free flowing in both the ungroundand ground states with reasonable protection from moisture

(5) Cost of the Monsanto E-2 AN in large bulk quantities is 157 1kg (71 [lb) which is comparable to other AN types which are not phase stabilized

ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant batches have been made with all three of the AN types discussed above In general results were as follows

(1) The propellant made with Monsanto E-2 AN had lower endshyof-mix viscosities and longer casting lives than the proshypellant made with the other two types of AN

(2) Burning rates with the Monsanto E-2 AN were either comparable or slightly faster

Based on these results Monsanto E-2 AN was selected as the preferred AN type for the following reasons

(1) It is easily processed with good particle-size control It remains free flowing in both the unground and ground states with reasonable protection from moisture The prill does not readily break with normal handling or tumble drying

(2) It has typically a 5 higher prill density This lowers propellant volumetric solids loading which improves castability

(3) This AN can be ground to more optimum size distributions for improved solids packing

3-25

065

063 063

1

- BOWDEN

MONSANTO E-2 -

I

PHASE ILr

E

uS 061 IIshy

0 -

CU 059

057

055

-100 -50

Figure 3-4

0 50 100

TEMPERATURE degC

Specific Volume of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature

150 200

3-26

(4) It does not have a talc anticaking coating which appears

to accelerate propellant viscosity buildup

(5) Phase stabilization minimizes volumetric changes with varying

temperature due to phase changes

(6) This AN gives comparable or slightly faster burning rates

(7) It has a comparable price to other AN types in large bulk

quantities

7 ANAPAlHTPB ( 3 Wt HC1 Exhaust)

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished

on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraint of lt 3 wt HCl in the propellant exhaust

This constraint is met by limiting the AP level in the formulation to

( 10 wt

a Burning Rate Studies Initial burning rate studies were

made to evaluate different ballistic modifier types and levels with

the basic 88 wt solids ANAPAlHTPB propellant The selection of

the ballistic modifiers was limited to those that were

(1) Commercially available

(2) Proved successful for use within rubber base propellants

(3) Non-migrating

(4) Reasonably priced

selectedAmmonium dichromate (NH4)2Cr207 at the 2 wt level was

as the primary ballistic modifier for the following reasons

(1) AN is the major oxidizer

(2) AD has been used successfully for years with AN propellants

Other ballistic modifiers were used in conjunction with the AD to enhance

burning rate and attempt to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms

(035 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) Table 3-9 shows the formulations evaluatedand the cured strand burning rates obtained

The propellant formulations were mixed as small (1000 to 1500 g)

batches using a 38-liter (1-gal) vertical Bramley mixer The propellant

was cast into RAM-225 released molds that formed individual propellant

strands and was then cured After cure the propellant strands were tested

in a conventional Crawford Bomb strand burner A subsequent study

discussed in the section on ANUNXAPAlHTPB propellant showed that

3-27

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Formulation wt Crawford Bomb Data

rb cms (ins)

Batch No

Total Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m)

Other Ballistic Modifier

Oxidizer Blend CoarseFine

At 345 Nem2

and 210C (500 psia and 700F)

At 690 Ncm2

and 210C (1000 psia and 700 F)

o

30

31 55

88 6o

59 57

10 15 2

2 2

Fe20Q

Fe203 Fe203

1

2 4

4555

442558 425575

0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0279 (0110)

0538 (0212)

0475 (0187)

0432 (0170)

32

33

49

34

60

59

57

59

2

2

2

2

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite Fe203

1

2

4

1 1

4555

442558

425575

442558

0462 (0182)

0564 (0222)

0472 (0186)

0493 (0194)

0627 (0247)

0759 (0299)

0671 (0264)

0737 (0290)estimated

50 57 2 Copper Chromite Fe203

2 2 425575 0511 (0201) 0699 (0275)

54 57 2 Copper Chromite FeF 3 (unground)

2 2 425575 0485 (0191) 0648 (0255)

35 6o 2 Milor Blue 1 4555 0399 (0157) 0625 (0246)

56 57 2 Milori Blue 4 425575 0371 (0146) 0528 (0208)

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

a Crawford Bomb Data

Formulation wt rb cms (ins)

At 3115 Ncm2 At 690 Ncm2

0 0and 21 C and 21 C

Batch Total Other Ballistic Oxidizer Blend (500 psia (1000 psia 0

No Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m) Modifier CoarseFine and 70 F) and 700 F)

W 36 88 60 10 15 2 Ferrocene 1 4555 0381 (0150) 0569 (0224)N)

42 60 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 1 4555 0429 (0169) 0594 (0234)

53 57 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 4 425575 0356 (0140) 0490 (0193)

41 60 2 Iron phthshyalocyanine 1$ 4555 0358 (0141) 0490 (0193)

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

the strand burning rates may have been biased to give faster rates by the RAM-225 release agent However the burning rate trends and ranking of the ballistic modifiers do not appear to be biased by the RAM-225

Figure 3-5 shows strand burning rates plotted at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) versus the second ballistic modifier level for the ballistic modifier systems evaluated General conclusions from the study were as follows

(1) The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) and 2 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) gave the fastest burn rate

(2) Increasing the combined level of burning rate modifiers to greater than 4wt of theformulatibn decreased the burn rate

Although the attritor-ground (I m) ferric fluoride (FeF 3) gave a faster burning rate than CU-0202 P at the 1 wt second ballistic modifier level FeF 3 was not selected because it would have contributed HF in the propellant exhaust A preliminary selection of the ballistic modifier system was made for subsequent work The system selected was 2 wt $ ground AD and 2 wt as-received CU-0202 P

Achievement of the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2

(035 ins at 1000 psia) had not been accomplished by simple manipulation of the ballistic modifier type and level Consequently propellant developshyment effort was continued toward this goal along the following approaches

(1) Finer particle size ballisticmodifiers

(2) Finer particle size AN

(3) Greater level of fine AN

(4) Finer particle size AP

(5) Use of potassium perchlorate

Two approaches were evaluated to reduce ballistic modifier particle sizes to sizes smaller than those achievable with a hammer mill They were dry ball milling and attritor grinding The dry ball milling approach was unsuccessful with AD and CU-0202 P because they packed into a hard cake Attritor grinding of AP and FeF 3 to particle sizes smaller than 1 m has been successfully demonstrated within the solid propellant industry This method uses an attritor mill to grind material suspended in Freon between zircoa beads Attritor grinds were successfully made with AD and CU-0202 P and the particle-size reductions accomplished are summarized in Table 3-10

3-30

1016 I1

STRAND BURN RATES POSSIBLY BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

040

EU

04 E

z 0762

FIRST BALLISTIC MODIFIER 200 wt GROUND AD

FeF3 GROUND TO I

030

K c

0 10

uIX FeF 3 (UNGROUND)

Z

0 58

IRONO PHTHALOCYANINE

MILORI BLUE

x FERROCENEFe 20 3

020 zS

ln

0254 I I 0 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SECOND BALLISTIC MODIFIER LEVEL wt

Figure 3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic

Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-31

Table 3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P

Screen Analysis Micromerograph Material 50 wt pt 50 wt pt

Particle Size pm Particle Size pm

AD

As received =575

Attritor ground (21 h) - 44

CU-0202 P

As received 21

Attritor ground (21 h) shy 17

Small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of the smaller ballistic modifier particle sizes on strand burning rates Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-11 General conclusions from this study are as follows

(1) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 1 wt FeF 3 fine ground AN and 9-gm AP reducing the FeF 3 particle size from a coarse as-received to attritor-ground 1 pm material increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2

(1000 psia) from 0594 to 0668 cms (0234 to 0263 ins) (-12)

(2) In an IDP-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P coarse ground AN and 63- AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm did not significantly change strand burning rate

(3) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (0208 to 0219 ins) ( 5)

(4) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (2208 to 0218 ins) (5)

3-32

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-l05 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized 40 IDP

plasticized

1200

-

1200

-

-

1200

-

1200

1200

-

1200

-

1200

-

Aluminum MD 105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground

72 pm Attritor ground

44 gm

200

-

200

-

200 -

200bull

200

-

200

-

-

200

Ferric fluoride As received Attritor ground 1 pm

100 -

-100

- -

- -

-

-

Copper chromite As received 21 pm

Attritor ground 17 pm

- 200

-

200

-

200

-

-

200

200

-

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine Ground Gulf

Oil Fine ground

Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

3150 -

2850

-

3150 -

2850

-

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 1000 9 [Lm

FEM ground 63 pm -

1000

-

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000 1000

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-33

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-105 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 690 Ncm 2 0429 0465 0422 0419 0424 0439 0437 (100 psia) (0169)(0183)(0166) (0165) (0167) (0173) (0172)

At 345 Ncm 2 0594 0668 0467 0475 0528 0556 0554 (500 psia) (0234)(0263)(0184) (0187) (0208) (0219) (0218)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 047 053 014 018 030 033 033

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

In summary reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burning rates for the selected ballistic modifier system

As discussed earlier particle-size control of the unground Gulf Oil AN was a problem because of breakage of the prills during drying and handling A partial approach to this problem was to screen the unground Gulf Oil AN into a selected size range after drying and handling Smallshyscale propellant batches (1000 to 1500 g) were made using Gulf Oil AN and strand burn rate tests were performed on these batches to evaluate

(1) The effect of screened +60 to -32 mesh (250 to 570 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(2) The effect of screened +32 to -16mesh (570 to 1190 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(3) The effect of varying the fraction of AN as fine ground on castability and burn rate

The fine ground AN was ground using a hammer mill with the following settings

9600 rpm hammer speed 80 rpm feed speed

0033-cm (0013-in) screen

3-34

Fisher sub-sieve average particle size for this material was typically 20 pm The fraction of AN as fine ground was limited to less than 55wt to keep propellant processable in the small scale batches (Larger batches typically have better castability) Table 3-12 and Fig 3-6 summarize test results General conclusions from these results were

(1) All batches had poor relative castability

(2) Using unscreened unground Gulf Oil AN (broad particle-size distribution with a significant portion of fines) and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 483 to 542 wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) from 0505 to 0577 cms (0199 to 0227 ins)

(3) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0462 cms (0199 to 0182 ins)

(4) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 300 to 483

wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (100 psia) from 0419 to Q462cms (0165 to 0182 ins)

(5) Changing the coarse fraction from screened +60 to -32 AN to screened +32 to -16 mesh AN reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0404 cms (0165 to 0159 in s)

Changing the type of ammonium nitrate type from Gulf Oil to Monsanto phase stabilized AN eliminated the problem of prill breakage but did not improve castability even with IDP plasticizer as shown by Batch SB-101 in Table 3-12 The slower burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponent with Batch SB-101 compared to Batch SB-64 is due to use of IDP as the plasticizer A small-scale propellant batch SB-102 was made with a coarse ground Monsanto AN to evaluate the effect of this material on castability and burn rate The coarse ground was made using a hammer mill with the following setting 4000 rpm hammer speed 160 rpm feed speed and 032-cm (18-in) screen

Screen analysis indicated this coarse ground AN had an average particle size of approximately 280 pm Propellant castability using this material was excellent but strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was reduced from 0485 to 0442 cms (0191 to 0174 ins) 9 The burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) was not achieved by varying AN type AN particle size or fraction of AN fine ground

The effect of replacing hammer mill ground AP by fluid energy mill ground AP on propellant burning rate was evaluated in a series of five small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) batches Three batches were made using DOA plasticizer and fine ground Gulf AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 55 pm Two batches were made using IDP plasticizer and coarse ground Monsanto AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm Results of this study are shown in Table 3-13 and Fig 3-7

3-35

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized40 IDP

plasticized

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 to 72 gm

Copper chromite as received

im21

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Screened (+60-32) Gulf Oil

Screened (+32 to -16 mesh) Gulf Oil

Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil

Fine ground Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground9 gm

Fraction of AN fine ground (wt )

Relative Castability

SB-64

AN-25

1200

-

200

200

1500

3050

-

-

2850

-

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-75

AN-63

1200

-

200

200

1500

2700

-

--

3200

-

1000

542

Poor

SB-48

AN-40

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

4130

--

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-48A

AN-40A

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

-

4130 -

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-61

AN-53

1200

200

200

1500

-

3050

-

2850

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-101 SB-102

AN-65 AN-65A

- -

1200 1200

200 200

200 200

1500 1500

- -

- -

- -3050 3050

- -

2850 -

2850

1000 1000

483 -

Poor Excellent

3-36

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-64 SB-75 SB-48 SB-48A SB-61 SB-101 SB-102

Formulation No AN-25 AN-63 AN-40 AN-40A AN-53 AN-65 AN-65A

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm 2 0366 0414 0277 0284 0338 0419 0351 (500 psia) (0144)(0163)(0109) (0112) (0133) (0165) (0138)

At 690 Ncm2 0505 0577 0419 0404 0462 0485 0442 (1000 psia) (0199)(0227)(0165) (0159) (0182) (0191) (0174)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 047 049 060() 050 045 022 032

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

These results indicated the following

(1) Using DOA plasticizer fine ground Gulf AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 55 gm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0508 to 0635 cms (0200 to 0250 ins)

(2) Using IDP plasticizer coarse ground Monsanto AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0442 to 0467 cms (0174 to 0184 ins)

(3) Use of the finer (55 to 63 pm) fluid energy ground AP did not increase pressure exponent

Maximum burning rate achieved using fluid energy ground AP was 0635 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0250 ins at 1000 psia) compared to the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

3-37

Table 3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-62 SB-64 SB-66 SB-102 SB-103

Formulation No AN-25 AN-25 AN-56 AN-65A- AN-65B

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 wt DOA plasticized 40 wt IDP plasticized

1200 -

1200 -

1200 -

-

1200 1200

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as

received 21 [m 200 200 200 200 200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 -1500

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil Coarse ground Monsanto

3050

-2850 -

3050

-2850

-

3050

-2850

-

3050 -

2850

3050 -

2850

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 9 1m Fluid energy ground 55 pm Fluid energy ground 63 pm

1000 --

1000 -

-

1000 -

1000 -

-

-

1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Ratesa

cms at 251C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)- 0368 (0145)

0366 (0144)

0457 (0180)

0351 (0138)

0422 (o166)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0508 (0200)

0505 (0199)

064 (025)

0442 (0174)

0467 (0184)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 049 049 048 032 014

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-38

0762 I I I 1 030 11nSTRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY -Z o BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

0E E

COARSE FRACTION HADBROAD SIZE DISTRIBUTION a Z o

WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTION OFFINES

oC 10I0 Ishy

lt 0508 020 w

zz Z 0-COARSE FRACTION WAS 04 n SCREENED TO OBTAIN

NARROW COARSE DISTRIBUTION (+60 -32

o Z

I-MESH) WITH NO FINES

-shy

0254 20

I 30

I 40

I 50

I 60

010 70

FRACTION QF FINE GROUND AN wt

Figure 3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (Gulf AN)

3-39

1270 050

E

U

o 0

I-

C

BURN RATE GOAL o

I-

D Co0

0762 FINE

DOA

GROUND AN AND

PLASTICIZER

030

0D 0o z

V) 0508-

COARSE GROUND AN AND IDP PLASTICIZER 020

0381 I I I I I 015 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) jm

Figure 3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size

ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-40

A small-scale propellant batch SB-65 was made to determine whether the burning rate could be increased significantly by replacing the ground AP by ground potassium perchlorate (KP) Strand burn rate tests were made on this batch and compared to the reference Batch SB-64 as shown in Table 3-14 Strand burning rate at690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was increased from 0505 to 0531 cms (0199 to 0209 ins) 5 but pressure exponent increased from 047 to 065 This approach was dropped because of the minimal increase in burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and the significant increase in pressure exponent

b Combustion Problems One of the problems in using ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer in solid propellants is the incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered specific impulse This problem was studied in the Phase 0 effort and partially resolved by modifying the formulations to include 10 wt AP Other approaches considered on this program to improve aluminum combustion and performance were

(1) Use of aluminum and zirconium mixtures Zirconium has

lower ignition temperature than aluminum

(2) Use of dichromate-coated aluminum powder

(3) Use of aluminummagnesium alloys

(4) Use of plasticizers containing more oxidizer to obtain a more favorable oxidizerfuel ratio

Some increases in propellant burning were also considered possible with several of these approaches Because of limited time and fundsonly the first two approaches were evaluated to any extent with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant Results of these studies are covered in the following discussion

A small-scale propellant batch SB-104 was made using the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum to evaluate the effect on strand burning rates Results of these strand burning rate tests are compared to strand burning rates of reference Batch SB-103 in Table 3-15 The replacement of the uncoated MD-05 aluminum by the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0467 to 0424 cms (0184 to 0167 ins) 9 No motors were loaded and tested to evaluate the effects of this dichromate-coated aluminum on delivered specific impulse

3-41

Table 3-14 Evaluation of Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-64 SB-65

Formulation No AN-25 AN-55

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 gim 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 [Lm 1000 -

Potassium perchlorate hammer mill ground 30 gm - 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0366 (0144) 0340 (013

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0505 (0199) 0531 (0209

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 049 065

Six small-scale propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of AlZr mixtures on propellant castability and strand burning rates Three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt Fe203 The other three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P Zirconium powder level was varied at 0 250 and 500 wt of propellant formulation (0 16 and 13 replacement of Al) Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-16 and Fig 3-8 General conclusions were as follows

3-42

Table 3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-103 SB-104

Formulation No AN-65B AN-65C

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 (uncoated) 1500 -

Aluminum H-5 (dichromate coated) - 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250C

(ins at 771F)

At 345 Ncm 2 (500 psia) 0422 (0166) 0366 (0144)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0467 (0184) 0424 (0167)

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 014 022

3-43

1016 1 1 1 1 040

-rl STRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY E BIASED BY RAM-225 (3 MOLD RELEASE

E

0762 030 0

CD 00 0 0 I---shy

100 CU-0202 P + 200 AD

z 0508 - 020 D

z z

- 100 Fe20 3 + 200 AD

0254 I I I -010 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ZIRCONIUM (REPLACING ALUMINUM) wt

Figure 3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium

ANAPA1HTPB Propellants

3-44

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Ingredients wt

iHTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1250 1000 1500 1250 1000

Zirconium powder --- 250 500 250 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 [m 200 200 200 200 200 200

Fe203 as received 100 100 100

Copper chromite as received --- - --- 100 100 100

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 gm 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)e

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0272 (0107)

0462 (0182)

0376 (0148)

0307 (0121)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0538 (0212)

0452 (0178)

0399 (0157)

0627 (0247)

0546 (0215)

0455 (0179)

3-45

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 390 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 052 058 058 044 054 057

apoor relative castability bUncastable

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

(1) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to make the propellant less castable on the 38-liter (1-gal) batch scale

(2) The 200 wt AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P ballistic modifier system gave faster burning rates than the 200 wt AD and 100 wt Fe203 ballistic modifier system

(3) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to reduce propellant strand burning rate and increase strand pressure exponent

Based on this study and the study of ballistic modifiers a formulation using 500 wt zirconium was selected for s6ale-up and evaluation in BATES motor firings Results of these additional tests are discussed in Section III-H-d and III-H-e

c Proc6ssing Studies Limited funds and time did not allow for any systematic study of processing variables to optimize processing conditions However processing methods and conditions were optimizedbased on experience Some of the specific approaches used for propellant mixing were

(1) Careful selections of order and manner of ingredient addition to disperse and wet solids

(2) Elevated temperatures prior to curative addition to wet and disperse solids and reduced temperatures after curative addition to minimize cure reactions

3-46

(3) Extended vacuum mix times prior to curative addition to

wet and disperse fine- solids

(4) Controlled moisture of ingredients and of the process

The effects of AN particle sizes and fraction of AN fine ground on propellant castability were discussed in conjunction with the burning rate studies

Antioxidants are commonly used with the R-45 HTPB binder to improve propellant pot life and aging stability The combination of UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-p-phenylene diamine) and DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone) appears to give synergistic effects and is very effective in extending pot life Protech 2002 (UTC proprietary metalshydeactivating antioxidant) and others of the Protech series have the additional advantage of being metal scavengers They tie up the transishytion metals that catalyze radical oxidations Four small-scale propellant batches were made initially to evaluate these pot-life extenders Table 3-17 summarizes results of this initial study The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH gave some improvement in propellant castability with no significant effect on propellant burning rate No improvement in propellant castability was observed with use of the Protech 2002 The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH was selected as the pot-life extender system to be used for additional evaluation

DOA was chosen initially as the plasticizer for use with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant It is one of the most commonly used plasticizers and its low cost is an advantage IDP has a lower viscosity and freezing point than DOA but is more costly than DOA Six smallshyscale propellant batches were made and tested to compare the two plasticizers DOA and IDP under the following three conditions

(1) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level without pot-life extenders

(2) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

(3) At the 50 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

Results of the study are summarized in Table 3-18 General conclusions from the study were

(1) The IDP consistently gave better castability than the DOA

(2) Use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH improved castability with both of the plasticizers DOA and IDP

(3) No major improvement in castability was observed by increasing the plasticizer in binder level from 40 to 50 wt

3-47

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1192 1177 1185

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl-hydroquinone) - 00 004 -

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshyphenylene diamine) -

Protech 2002 (UTC

proprietary antioxidant) -

004

-

004

015

-

015

Aluminum MD-105 1000 1000 1000 1000

Zirconium powder 500 500 500 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63ttxz 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm 1000 1000 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-48

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at

0770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 0323 0295 0282 0269 (500 psia) (0127) (0116) (0111) (0106)

At 690 Ncm 2 0475 0467 0483 0460 (1000 psia) (0187) (0184) (0190) (0181)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 057 066 078 078

aUncastable bpoor castability

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

The effect of plasticizer type on propellant burning rate was not conshyclusively determined from this study Two out of the three cases indicated that the IDP gave slower strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) To resolve this question two additional propellant batches SB-100 and SB-101 were made where the strand burn rate test results could not possibly be biased by the RAM-225 release agent The batches were formulated to have 40 wt plasticizer in binder and to use the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH Results of tests on these two batches are shown in Table 3-19 These results indicated the change from DOA to IDP plasticizer reduced the strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0544 to 0485 cms (0214 to 0191 ins) ( 11)

Based on results of these processing studies the following propellant selections were made for additional evaluation in scale-up batches and motor tests

(1) DOA plasticizer

(2) 40 wt plasticizer in binder level

(3) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH each at the 004 wt level

3-49

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

Formulation No AN-57a AN-58b AN-25 0 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 592 592 720 720 712 712

DTBH (25 dishytertiary butyl hydroquinone) 004 004 - - 004 004

UOP-36 (N-phenylshyN-cyclohexylshyP-phenylene diamine) 004 004 - - 004 004

DOA 600 - 480 - 480 -

IDP - 600 - 480- - 480

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 Am 200 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 [Lm 200 200 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate screened ungroundGulf Oil +60 -32 mesh 2700 2700 - - - -

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil - - 3050 3050 2700 2700

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 3200 3200 2850 2850 3200 3200

Ammonium perchloshyrate hammer mill ground 9 jim - - 1000 1000 1000 1000

3-50

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ammonium perabloshyrate fluid energy mill ground 55 pm

Total

Strand Burning Ratesd cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2 (500 to 1000 psia)

aGood castability

SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

AN-57a AN-58b AN-250 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

1000 1000 -

10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

0376 0371 0366 0478 0414 0353 (0148) (0146) (0144) (0188) (0163) (0139)

0572 0533 0505 0658 0577 0500 (0225) (0210) (0199) (0259) (0227) (0197)

059 053 047 046 049 048

bExcellent castability 0Poor castability dpossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-51

Table 3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-100

-AN-25a

SB-101

AN-65b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 712 712

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshy

P-phenylene diamine)

004

04

004

004

DOA 48o -

IDP - 480

Aluminum IAD-I05 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 72 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm

Total 1000

10000 1000

10000

Strand burning rates cms at 25degC (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

0406 (0160)

0544 (0214)

0419 (0165)

0485 (0191)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

041 022

apoor castability bFair castability

3-52

Results of these additional tests are discussed in sections on scale-up and ballistic evaluation

d Scale-up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Two propellant formulations were selected for evaluation in scale-up batches [946 liters 104 to 113 kg (25gal 230 to 250 lb)] and motor tests Formulation AN-25 was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum and 4 wt ballistic modifier Formulation AN-59 was identical except one-third of the aluminum (5 wt of the propellant formulation) was replaced by zirconium powder Details of the formulations are shownin Table 3-20 Both formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section e The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples from each batch

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rate

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-20 General conclusions from these tests were as follows

(1) The end-of-mix viscosities and pot lives on both batches were excellent There was no degradation of castability with zirconium as suggested by the small-scale batch studies

(2) Strand burning rates were slightly faster at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) for the formulation with zirconium The smallshyscale studies had suggested slower burning rates for formulashytions containing zirconium

(3) Both formulations had burning rateswhich were well below the burning rate goal 0478 and 0513 cms at 690 Ncm2

(0188 and 0202 ins at 1000 psia) versus goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(4) Card gap tests on both formulations were negative at 0 cards and therefore met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Density of the propellant containing zirconium was slightly higher than the propellant containing just aluminum as expected

3-53

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

Propellant Type Batch Number Formulation Number Batch Size kg (ib)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized)

UOP-36

DTBH

Ammonium dichromate grodnd 63 pm

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Aluminum powder

Zirconium powder

Ammonium nitrate Gulf Oil unground Gulf Oil fine ground

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 pm

Total

Brookfield apparent viscosities kP at 0C (OF)

Time after curative addition

07 h (end-of-mix) 13 h 34 h

Strand burning rates at 251C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) At 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

ANAPAlHTPB SB-73 AN-25

113 (250)

1192

004

004

200

200

1500

-

3050 2850

1000

10000

60 at 55 (130) 73 at 57 (135) 95 at 55 (130)

0257 (0101) 0373 (0147) 0462 (0182) 0478 (0188)

3-54

ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74 AN-59

104 (230)

1192

004

004

200

200

1000

500

3050 2850

1000

10000

41 at-57 (-135) 50 at-57 (-135)

0224 (0088) 0353 (0139) 0437 (0172) 0513 (0292)

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations (Continuation 1)

Propellant Type ANAPAlHTPB ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74Batch Number SB-73

Formulation Number AN-25 AN-59 Batch Size kg (ib) 113 (250) 104 (230)

Card Gap Tests 10 negative 10 negative at 0 cards at 0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) 16497 16630 gcm3 (lbin 3 ) (00596) (00601)

JANNAF Uniaxial properties Sm Ncm 2 (psi) 90 (130) 88 (127) era 47 48

Sb Ncm2

eb (psi) 90 (130)

47 88 (127)

48

(6) JANNAF uniaxial properties for both batches were comparable

Maximum stress Sm was in the range of 88 to 90 Ncm2

(127 to 130 psi) and strain at maximum stress em was in

the range of 47 to 48 The low strain values are adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

e Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlHTPB System (3 HCl in

Exhaust) The five candidate alternate propellants listed and defined

in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were all scaled up to processing of 113-kg (250-1b)

batches loaded into BATES motors and test fired The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions using nozzles manufactured

and cut to actual expansion ratios of 716 Both chamber pressure and thrust were measured The tests were conducted at ambient temperature

conditions with propellant charges conditioned to 250C (770F) The

measured sea level Isp swas corrected to a vacuum Isp by simply adding the

back-pressure correction The following equations define the pertinent ballistic parameters

PC _f tEWAT Pc Edttb

J t at 075 Pc init

3-55

-- t EWA T F = dt tF=ftat 075 PC initFtt

Ab gPc KN= - = -

At crp

-- f ta C g At PdtWp g PcKN rp

It Isp ms = shywip

fta itr Fdt

to

PaAeIsp vac ms =Isp MS + -

Wp expended

(ta + tb)2

Figure 3-9 shows the burning rate of the formulation number AN-25 the ANAPAlHTPB propellant system with 10 AP Table 3-21 is a tabulashytion of theBATES motor test data from the test firings of batch number SB-74 of formulation AN-25

f Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlZrHTPB BATES motors were also loaded and tested with the modified ANAPAlHTPB formulation

containing 5 Zr powder a 15-pm powder The burning rates determined in BATES motors are shown in Fig 3-10 and the ballistic data from the BATES motors tests are tabulated in Table 3-22

3-56

PRESSURE psic 4

102 8 103 2 4 6 102 4 6 1524 i 1 1 1 6

A BATES MOTOR DATA 1016 4

n 0278

E --U 0508 -

2

KN shy

(D 0254 - 1000 1o0 1

z 0203- 800- 88

z

0152 - 600 6

0102 - -400 4

0051 I 200 2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73

3-57

2540 2032

1524

102

-

2 4

PRESSURE

6 103

I

psa

2 4 6 104 10

BATES MOTOR DATA 6

1016 n 0277 4

0508 2

O

S0254-0229 0152 -

KN

1000 800600600

I0-866

z

a

6102 - 400 4

0051 I I I 1 200 1 2

69

Fig 3-10

138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74

3-58

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test data

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

W loaded kg (lb)

Wp expended kg (lb)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-sem2 (lb-s)

E-1453 E-1455

9-15-75 9-23-75

SB-732 SB-733

3376 3109 (1329) (1224)

3393 3119 (1336) (1228)

25225 2525 p(55611) (5567) 25028 2501

(55177) (5513)

9922 9904

3840 3855 (1512) (15178)

811 742

881 797

425 576 (616) (835)

493 634 (715) (919)

459 590 (666) (856)

38844 45878 (56339) (66541)

3-59

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 PropellantTable 3-21 (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s)

p (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia)

r at PC cms

(ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s

(Ib-s)

F (JF dttb)6 N (lb)

It (f F dt) (ta)

N-s (lbrs)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

In vac ins N-skg M

E-1455E-1453

4723240196 (68504)(58300)

61834790 (8968)(69147)

05180483 (0190) (02o4)

534445332

528544739

1432 1424 (4700) (4673)

948953

5174650665 (11633)(11390)

6973461910 (15677)(13918)

53745852257 (120826)(11748)

212844207165 (21704)(21125)

88828820

228132226534 (2310) (23263)

3-60

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids Aluminum Oxidizer

88 15 AP-1O AN-59 HMX 0

Run No E-1453 E-1455

Expansion ratio 688 700

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test date

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

Wp loaded kg (ib)

Wp expended kg (ib)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

-E-1454 E-1456

9-18-75 9-26-75

SB-741 SB-742

3287 3119 (1294) (1228)

3307 3142 (1302) (1237)

2561 2561 (5647) (5646)2534 2528

(5586) (5574)

9891 9872

3835 38298 (1510) (15078)

3-61

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-IO AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s)

fP dt (ta) N-scm (lb-s)

Pc (f P dttb)

Ncm2 (psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

E-1454 E-1456

769 740

824 784

465 552 (675) (800)

541 620 (785) (899)

540 614 1 (783) (890)

40311 4482C (58467) (6500

41806 46000 (60634) (66718)

5242 6057 (7603) (8785)

0498 0518 (0196) (0204)

478 531

4726 523

13940 14319 (45736) (46977)

928 9527

3-62

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb)N (lb)

it (fF dt) (ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s-)

Isp efficiency

lsi vac ms N-skg(s22055

Expansion ratio

E-1454 E-1456

50189 50576 (11283) (11370)

6526 6835 (1467) (15365)

52044 52044 (11700) (11770)

20319 20447 (2072) (2085)

8598 865

22016

(2249) (2245)

696 694

3-63

8 ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (gt3 Wt HCl in Exhaust)

The propellant development work accomplished on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to this point indicated that the burn rate goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with the constraint of lt3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was probably not achievable Development work was continued on this propellant with the HC1 constraint removed but held to a minimum This section discusses that propellant development effort

a Burning Rate Studies Four small-scale batches (1500 g) were made varying the FEM AP (fluid energy mill-ground ammonium perchlorate) level from 10 to 30 wt The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground AD and 2 wt CU-0202 P was used End-of-mix viscosities pot life and cured strand burning rates were measured on each batch Objective of this work was to determine what FEM AP level was needed

to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) The formulations and test results are shown in Table 3-23and Fig 3-11 These results lead to the following conclusions

(1) The strand burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) is achievable using 18 wt FEM AP A motor burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) may require a slightly higher FEM AP level

(2) End-of-mix viscosities werein the range of 88 to152 kP at 520C (125 0 F) for FEM AP levels ranging from 10 to 20 wt Casting lives for these batches were 2_35 h at

520C (125 0F)

(3) Using FEM AP and increasing the AP level from 10wt to 18-wt increases HCI in the exhaust from 29 to =50

Thermoballistic calculations indicated that reducing the ballistic modifier level to 2 wt by elimination of the AD increased theoretical Isp by 196 N-skg (2 s) Elimination of the AD was desirable from other considerations Studies had shown that it crosslinks the R-45 prepolymer (probably through the double bond) and degrades propellant castability and physical properties Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made varying the FEM AP level over the range of 15 to 25 wt level Only 2 wt as received CU-0202 P was used as ballistic modifier End-of-mix viscosities and-cured strand burning rates were measured

Results of this study are shown in Table 3-24 and Fig 3-11 General conclusions from this work were

(1) Approximately 20 wt FEM AP is required to meet the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosities were in the range of 18 to 19 kP at 520C (1250F)

3-64

1 1 0902286

0802032 - 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 200

AD + 200 CU-0202 P

KZ 1778 690 Ncm2 (1000 psa) -070 E 200CU-0202 P

0 -060 O 1524

lt I- 345 Ncm

2 (500 psa) 200 AD 200CU-0202 P

0501270

z z

040 D2 1016 co

z z

0762- 030n

345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 200 CU-0202 P 0200508 -

I I 0100254 I I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FEM AP LEVEL wt

Fig 3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

3-65

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder 40 DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground (72 im)

Copper chromite as received (21 1im)

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto unground

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto fine grind

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy ground (63 tim)

SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

3050 3050 3050 -3050

2850 2350 1850 850

1000 1500 2000 3000

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier) (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

Formulation No AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

Brookfield Viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) kPh after CA

End-of-mix -152067 112062 88038 2806 LU

Pot life 18417 26418 22414 shy25627 3228 27224 3237 4038 40834

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0424 (0167) 0536 (0211) 0739 (0291) 1461 (0575) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0528 (0208) 0693 (0273) 1067 (0420) 2136 (0841)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 - 038 051 052

CA = curative addition

Table 3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (2 Wt Ballistip Modifier)

Batch No Formulation No

Ingredientswt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate

FEM ground 63 Pm

Brookfield End-of-Mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F)

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-135 AN-69

1200

1500

200

3050

2550

1500

10000

19

0437 (0172)

0660 (0260)

058

SB-136 SB-137 AN-70 AN-71

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

3050 3050

1550 2050

2500 2000

10000 10006

18

0884 (0348) 0615 (0242)

0242 (0489) 0930 (0366)

051 060

3-68

Based on these results formulation AN-71 with 2 wt as received CUshy0202 P and 20 wt FEM AP was selected for additional evaluation with

a scale-up batch and motor tests

b Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation Formulation AN-71 was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch [946 liter (25 gal) 113 kg (250 lb)] and motor tests It was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum 20 wt FEM AP and 2 wt ballistic modifier Details of the formulation are shownin Table 3-25 Formulation AN-71 was successfully mixed in the 946-liter (25-gal) mixer and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section III-H-8-c and d Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests

were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are also summarized in Table 3-25 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The propellant end-of-mix viscosity was 28 kP at 530C (127degF) which is high but acceptable Pot life was about 2 hours

(2) The strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was 0922 cms (0363 ins) which met the goal of 089 cms at

690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(3) Strand pressure exponent was 061 Motor pressure exponents are typically lower than strand pressure exponents The generally high pressure exponent is associated with the low ballistic modifier level (2 wt CU-0202 P) and the

fine (FEM) AP

(4) Card gap tests were negative at 0 cards Therefore they met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) The propellant density and JANNAF uniaxial properties obtained were typical of properties obtainedwith the ANAPAlHTPB propellant Measured density was 16497 gcm3 at 250C (00596 lbin3 at 770 F) Sm was 89 Ncm2 (129 psi) with an em of 37 The low strain values were adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

3-69

Table 3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation

ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Type Batch Number SB-140 Formulation No AN-71

113 kg (250 lb)Batch Size

Formulation wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized) 1192 004UOP-36 004DTBH

Copper Chromite as received 21 Am 200 Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 Ammonium nitrate

Monsanto unground 3050 Monsanto fine ground 2050

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 2000

Total 10000

Brookfield Apparent Viscosities kP at 0C (OF) Time after curative addition

09 h (end-of-mix) 28 at 53 (127) 19 h 52 at 52 (125) 29 h 73 at 52 (125)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins) At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) 0445 (0175) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0612 (0241) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) 0785 (0309) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0922 (0363)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 061 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests Negative at

0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) gcm3 (lbin 3) 16497 (00596)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties Sm Ncm2 (psi) 89 (129) em 37

89 (129)Sb Ncm2 (psi)eb 37

3-70

c Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAIHTPB (gt3 HCI in Exhaust)

As has been discussed the effects on this candidate propellant system

resulting from increasing the AP content were studied A formulation

with 20 AP and burning rate modifier reduced to 2 met the burning The burningrate and Isp goal This formulation is identified as AN-71

rates and measured Isp are shown in Fig 3-12 and Table 3-26 respectively

d Summary One ANAPAlHTPB propellant formulation was

developed that conformed to the program constraints for lt3 wt HCl

in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards

classification This formulation AN-25 had a motor burning rate

-of only 053 cms at 690 Ncm2 (021 ins at 1000 psia) and a

= 716 of only 2285 N-skg (233 s) A maximumdelivered vacuum Ip E

strand burning rate of only 064 cms at 690 Ncm2 (025 ins at

1000 psia) (unbiased by RAM-225 release agent) was achieved within

the program constraints with a small-scale batch using fluid energy

Since the development work indicated thatmillground (55 [m) AP

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1300 psia)

was probably not achievable with the constraint of _3 wt HI in the

propellant exhaust development work was continued with this constraint

removed but held to a minimum Formulation AN-71 was developed to

This formulation used only 200 meet the program goals on that basis

wt copper chromite as ballistic modifier and 2000 wt fluid energy

It had a motor burning rate of 097 cms atmill ground (63 gim) AP 1000 psia) and a delivered vacuum I E = 716690 Ncm2 (038 ins at

of 2403 N-skg (245 s) Table 3-27 summarizes and compares te properties

of these two formulations versus the program goals

The following summarizes the status of the ANAPAlHTPB propellant

development

(1) The basic ANAPA1HTPB propellat ip the second most

promising candidate of the three basic propellants

to good(2) Demonstrated that a few of AP is essential

aluminum combustion

of AP is required to meet(3) Demonstrated that more than 10

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins

at 1000 psia)

(4) Formulation AN-71 with 20 wt AP met the program goals for

burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [097 cms (038 ins)

achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] and delivered

= 716 [2403 N-skg (245 s) achieved versusvacuum Is at E

goal of 21403 N-skg (245 s)] but did not meet the goal

for pressure exponent (048 achieved versus goal of K042)

It conformed to the constraint for a Class 2 propellant

but did not conform to the constraint for lt_3 wt HUl in

the propellant exhaust

3-71

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellent

Solids 88 Alumindm 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX ---

Run No E-1484

Test Date 6-10-76

BatchChg No SB-1401

Nozzle Dt init cm (in) 48636 (19148)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 46380 (1826)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3025 (6670)

Wp expended kg(ib) 3025 (6668)

Wt expended 9997

Web thickness cm (in) 4648 (1830)

tb s 698

ta s 730

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 313 (454)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 380 (551)

Pc final Ncm 2 (psia) 317 (460)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24506 (355435)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24952 (3619)

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 351 (509) (psia)

r at cCms (ins) 0665 (0262)

KN initial 2103

KN average 21987

C ms (fts) 14604 (47914)

C efficiency 972

3-72

-E-1491

6-25-76

SB-1402

48636 (19148)

46355 (1825)

3016 (6650)

3003 (6621)

9956

4630 (1823)

654

705

317 (460)

421 (610)

238 (345)

24525 (355710)

24948 (36184)

3750 (5439)

0709 (0279)

2103

-21998

14638 (48026)

975

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX --shy

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 6248797 (14o4786) 6281131 (1412055)

F (fF dttb) N (lb) 895249 (20126) 960415 (21591)

it (fF dt for ta) 6356996 (142911) 6382382(1434817)

N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 210117 (21426) 215588 (21576)

Isp efficiency 9226 9256

Isp vac ms (corr) 240214 (24495) 241008 (24576)

Expansion ratio 716 726

(5) Formulation AN-25 with 10 wt AP met the program goal for presshysure exponent (028 achieved versus goal of lt042) but did not

meet the goals for burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [053 cms (021 ins) achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] dr for delivered vacuum I eE = 716 [2285 N-skg (233 s) achieved versus goal of gt2403 N-skg (245 s)] It conformed to the constraints for a Class 2 propellant and gt3 wt hCl in the propellant exhaust

(6) Demonstrated good castability and a pot life greater than

34 hours for formulation AN-25

(7) Demonstrated acceptable castability for formulation AN-71

(8) Successfully loaded and test fired 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with both formulations

(9) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

9 ANHMXAIHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished in the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined pershyformance goals within the constraints specified One of the advantages of this basic propellant is that it contains no AP and consequently generates no HCl in the exhaust However typical formulations using

3-73

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104

1524 I 1 1 6

1016 -A BATES MOTOR DATA 4

0 5x 10 MOTOR DATA 0508 - 2

E U

n =048 KN

0254 1-- 000 10 o 0203 800-6L 8

Z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0124 - 400 4 D

0051 200 2

I 10-20025 I1 I I

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm 2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140

3-74

Table 3-27 ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Achieved Properties vs Goals

Achieved Value

SB-140SB-73 AN-71AN-25-Alternate Propellant

Goal (10 wt- AP) (20 wt AP)Property

BATES motor Burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

089 (035) 053 (021) 097 (038)acms (ins)

BATES motor lt042 028pressure exponent

-Delivered vacuum sn

E 716 N-skg (s) 2403 (2245) 2285 (233) 2403 (245)

lt3 30 631C1 in exhaust

Meets card gap yes Required yesrequirement for Class 2 (negative (negative

at 0 cards)at 0 cards)

a45-kg (10-1b) motor test data

7) about to 20 wt HMX have theoretical Isp values

(vacuum and E 15 196 N-skg (2 s) less than comparable ANHNXAP(10)AlHTPB

formulations

Reduction in program funds and scope limited development effort on

this basic propellant to only four exploratory mixes

Two 10-g hand mixes one uncured and one a Safety Tests cured were made of formulations with 20 wt Class

A HMX to initially -Impact

check material compatibility and propellant safety properties

tests (DSC-differential scanning calorimeter) were made on both mixes

The formulations and results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-28

For comparison purposes these same safety tests were made on propellant

samples of the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-B-1123) Table 3-29

compares the safety properties of the candidate ANHMXAlHTPB formulation

AN-52 with the safety properties of PBAN baseline formulation TP-H-1123

These tests indicated

3-75

Table 3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No

Formulation No

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45 Alrosperse Premix DOA (4o)

Aluminum Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm Copper chromite as received Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 pm HMX Type II Class A

(DOA coated) Ammonium nitrate ground Ammonium nitrate unground

(+60 -32 mesh screened fraction) IPDI

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight 0 fire 50 fire

Electrostatic Sensitivity J

Thermal Stability (DSC - 10OCmin heating rate)

SB-59 SB-60

AN-51 (uncured) AN-52

1108 1108

1500 1500 200 200 200 200 7

2020 2020 3410 3410

1500 1500 none shy 062 9938 10000

4318 (17 )a 4572 (18) 4826 (19 )a 508 (20)

gt128 gt128

No exotherm No exotherm over tempera- over temperashyture range 21 ture range 21 to 1490c (70 to 1490c (70

to 3000 F) to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

3-76

Table 3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAiHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-52)

Formulation TP-H-1123 (PBAN Baseline)

Batch No SB-77

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400

HTPB binder

Aluminum 1600

Ballistic modifiers 040

Ammonium perchlorate 6960

Ammonium nitrate

HMX Type II Class A

Impact sensitivity cm (in) for 18 kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4318 (18) 50 fire 4953 (195)

Electrostatic sensitivity J gt128

Thermal stability (DSC - 100 Cmin heating rate) No exotherm

over temperature range 21 to -1490c (70tto 3000F)

DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

AN-52

SB-60

1190

1500

400

4910

2000

4572 (18) 508 (20)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000F)

3-77

(1) Formulation AN-52 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123)

(2) DSC data suggested that thermal stability of the 20 wt HMX propellant and gross material compatibility over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 300 0F) were adequate

(3) Formulations with up to 20 wt HMX could be safely processed inthe JPL ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

b Burning Rate Studies Two small-scale batches (1000 g) were made varying the level of Class A HMX from 1500 to 2000 wt Strand burn rate tests were made on cured propellant from both batches The formulations and results of strand burn rate tests are shown in Table 3-30 Strand burning rates increased from 0414 to 0450 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0163 to 0177 ins at 1000 psia) with the 1500 to 2000 wt increase in Class A HMX while the strand pressure exponent remained constant at 042 Although the strand pressure exponent met the performance goal of lt042 the burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)were well below the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) These very slow burn rates suggest that the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant may not be a viable candidate for achieving program goals

c Hazard Classification Card gap samples were cast cured and tested from the two batches shownin Table 3-30 Results of the card gap tests indicated positive tests at 35 and 70 cards on both batches Therefore these formulations with 15 and 20 wt Class A HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant hazard classification one of the major constraints Propellant development work on the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant was terminated at this point

d Summary The following summarizes the status of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant development

(1) Demonstrated that 1500 and 2000 wt_ Class A HMX resulted in Class 7 propellants

(2) Achieved a strand burning rate of 0450 cms (0177 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and a strand pressure exponent of 042 with a formulation containing 2000 wt Class A HMX

(3) Demonstrated good castability of the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant

(4) Discontinued development of this basic propellant as a result of reduction in funds

3-78

Table 3-30 ANHM4XHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-82A (HMX)

ANH-1

SB-81

ANH-1

(HMX)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class A 1500 2000

Ammonium nitrate 5400 4900

Card gap tests

0 cards 35 cards 70 cards

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

1 positive 2 positive

0-310 (0122) 0414 (0163)

042

1 positive 2 positive

0340 (0134) 0450 (0177)

042

3-79

10 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work-accompshylished on the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraints specified The constraint of lt_3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was accomplished by limiting the AP level in the formulation to10 wt The constraint of a Class 2 propellant hazard classification was primarily accomplished by limiting the HMX Class (particle size) and level to meet the card gap requireshyments for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards)

a Safety Tests Safety tests were performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes containing 20 wt Class A HMX to check material compatishybility and safety properties The formulations and the test results are shown in Table 3-31 As in the case of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant these safety tests results were compared to similar safety test results on the PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123) Table 3-32 shows this comparison General conclusions were

(1) Formulation AN-50 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as TP-H-1123

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F) as determined by the DSC

(3) Formulations with-up to 20 wt HMX could besafely proshycessed in the JPL-ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

Safety tests were also performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes to check material capability and propellant safety properties when the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were incorporated into ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellants Selected level for both UOP-36 and DTBH was 004 wt Impact sensitivity electrostatic sensitivity and thermal stability (DSC) tests were made on samples from the mix with the pot-life extendshyers SB-127 and on samples from a control mix without the pot-life extenders SB-126 The formulations and test results were shown in Table 3-33 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The mix with the pot-life extenders had essentially the same impact sensitivity and electrostatic sensitivity as the control mix

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000 F) (DSC)

b Burning Rate Studies Six small-scale batches were made varying HMX particle size at two sizes Class A ( 149 lm) and Class E (15 to 20 gim) and HMX level at three levels 10 15 and 20 wt Objective of this study was to determine the effects of HMX particle

3-80

Table 3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No SB-57 (uncured)

Formulation No AN-49

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45

Alrosperse Premix 1108

DOA (40)

Aluminum 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm 200

Copper chromite as received 200

Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 Jm 1000

HMX Type II Class A (1 DOA coated) 2020

Ammonium nitrate ground 3910

IPDI none

9938

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for

18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 Fire 381 (15)a

50 Fire 43-18 (17 )a

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over (DSC at 10degCmin heating temperature range rate) 21 to 1490C

(70 to 3000 F)

SB-58

AN-50

1108

1500

200

200

1000

2020

3910

062

10000

5334 (21)

5715 (225)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples

3-81

Table 3-32 -Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate--ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-50)

Formulation TP-H-1123 AN-50

(PANbaseline)

Batch Number SB-77 SB-58

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400 ---

HTPB binder --- 1190

Aluminum 1600 1500

Ballistic modifiers 040 400

Ammonium perchlorate 6960 1000

Ammonium nitrate --- 3910

HMX Type II Class A --- 2000

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4572 (18) 5334 (21)

50 fire 4953 (195) 5715 (225)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability (DSC at 100Cmin heating No exotherm over No exotherm-over rate) temperature rangeru temperature range

21 to 1490C 21 to 149 0 Cshy(70 to 3000 F) (70 to 3000 F)

size and level on propellant hazard classification (card gap tests) strand burningrates and relative castability Tests were performed on- samples from each of these batches and the results are summarized in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 alongwith-the formulations Results of the card gap tests and relative castability are discussed in the hazards classification and processing sections respectively The strand burn- ing rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) were plotted versus HMX level in Fig 3-13 forthe two different HMXparticle sizes Class A and Class E Although the strand burning rates are biased to faster values by the

3-82

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests

Formulations for 10-g Hand Mixes

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate attritor ground (44 pm)

Copper chromite attritor

ground (17 Pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (63 gm)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-Nshycyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine)

DTBH (ditertiary butyl hydroquinone)

Safety Tests (Cured Propellant)

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight)

0 Fire

50 Fire

SB-126 SB-127

ANH-16A (Control) ANH-30

1200 1192

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1300 1300

100 1000

004

0-04

10000 10000

43 (17) 57 (19)

52 (205) 51 (20)

3-83

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests (Continuation 1)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over No exotherm over

(DSC at 10degCmin heating rate)

temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000F)

temperature range 21 to 149 0C (70 to 3000F)

RAM-225 release agent the relative ranking and trends are believed to be valid General conclusions from these rankings and trends are as follows

(1) The fine particle size HMX Class E (15-20 pm) gave signifishycantly faster burning rates than the coarse Class A (=149 pm) HMX

(2) The fine particle size HMX Class E gave lower pressure exponent than the coarse Class E HMX

(3) Strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) increased significantly with HMX level to about 15 wt and tended to level in the 15 to 20 wt range

From burning rate considerations the fine size Class E HMX was preferred because it gave faster burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponents Formulation ANH-5A [Batch SB-85A(HMX)] was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed in Sections III-H-10-f and III-H-10-g on Scale-up and Ballistic Evaluation

Cured propellant strands to this point in the program had been prepared by casting the uncured propellant into molds which formed individual strands and which had been coated with RAM-225 release agent Test data from the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings(from Batch SB-89 (first scale-up batch) revealed a large discrepancy between strand burn rates and the 45-kg (10-1b) motor burn rates An investigation of this discrepshyancy revealed that the RAM-225 was the cause Strands were prepared in5 the following three ways and tested for comparison

(1) Strands cured in the RAM-225 release molds and restricted

(2) Strands cut from a solid block of cured propellant and restricted

(3) Strands cut from a block of cured propellant then given light spray coat of RAM-225 dried in 710 C (1600F) oven then restricted

3-84

Table 3-34 ANH-MXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class A

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchlorate

ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates2

at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500to 1000 psia)

SB-88

ANH-8

1200

1500

200

200

1000

4900

1000

2 negative

1 negative

0480(0189)a

6 65 (0 2 62 )a0

048

SB-83 SB-84

ANH-3 NH-4

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1500 2000

4400 3900

1000 1000

-

1 positive 1 positive

2 positive 2 positive

0 622 (0 245 )a 05 41(02 13 )a

0826 (0 32 5)a 0 7 47 (02 94 )a

041 047

3-85

Table 3-34 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) (Continuation 1)

Shore A Hardness (3 s) 81 80 82

Relative Castability Good Good Good

aStrands were cast into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

Results of the tests are summarized in Table 3-36 and Fig 3-14 Very good agreement was obtained between the burn rate of strands cured in the RAM-225 release mold and strands cut from a cured block of propelshy

lant and then sprayed with RAM-225 However both these sets of burn

rates were erroneously fast compared to the 5 x 10 motor burn rates In contrast the strand burn rates obtained from cut strands which were

not treated with RAM-225 were much slower and agreed fairly well with motor data

A brief investigation was made to determine the composition of RAM-225 and whether it could be used as an improved ballistic modifier in the propellant formulation Chemical analysis of RAM-225 indicated

that it is a high molecular weight silicone oil in the solvents isopropashynol and heptane Two 38-liter (1-gal) batches of propellant were made with 015 wt dimethyl silicone (1000 cS) One batch had 400 wt mixed ballistic modifiers (ammonium dichromate and copper chromite) and

the other batch had 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier Both batches made with the 015 wt dimethyl silicone showed signs of viscosity buildup even before curative addition The batch with the 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier became too viscous to process to completion Tests results on the successfully completed batch with 015 wt dimethshyyl silicon [Batch SB-107 (HMX)] are shown in Table 3-37 Test results from Batch SB-108 (HMX) are also included in this table for comparative purposes General conclusions from these tests are as follows

(1) No significant changes in strand burning rates were observed due to addition of 015 wt dimethyl silicone

(2) The dimethyl silicone caused rapid propellant viscosity buildup even before curative addition and therefore the material appears impractical from propellant processing considerations

A series of six small-scale (1000 g) batches was made with the specific objectives of increasing propellant burn rate improving castashybility and improving burn rate reproducibility US Agri-Chemicals (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent was used for all six batches The following variables were evaluated

3-86

0

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations --HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchloshyrate ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

32 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770 F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-87 SB-85A SB-86

ANH-7 ANH-5A ANH-6

1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500

200 200 200

200 200 200

1000 1500 2000

4900 4400 3900

1000 1000 1000

2 neg -

1 neg

I neg 2 neg 1 pos

1 pos

(500 psia) 0 767 (0 302 )a 0 930 (0 366 )a 0912(0359)a

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0970(0382)a 1105 (0 43 5 )a 1 128 (0444 )a

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2

(500to 1000 psia) 033 024 031

3-87

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation

(Class E HMX) (Continuation 1)

89 88Shore A Hardness (3 s) 90

Relative Castability Fair Fair Marginal

aStrands were east into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

(1) Ammonium nitrate particle size Replacement of part or all of the large unground prills by a coarse-ground ammor nitrate

(2) Plasticizer type Replacement of DOA (dioctyl adipate) by IDP (isodecyl pelargonate)

Relative castability and strand burn rates were measured on each batch Results of this study are summarized in Tables 3-38 and 3-39 and Fig 3-15 General conclusions regarding propellant burn rates from the study were as follows

(1) Replacement of the very large unground ammonium nitrate prills by coarsely ground ammonium nitrate reduced propelshy

lant burning rate

(2) Replacement of DOA by IDP slightly reduced propellant burnshying rate (Q2)

(3) Strand pressure exponents were typically 036 or less well within the goal of lt042

(4) The US Agri-Chemical (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent handled without caking and had less tendshyency to size reduce during handling tand mixing These

factors should improve propellant burn rate reproducibility

The reduction in burn rate by replacement of unground prills with coarseshyly ground AN was unexpected and inconsistent with usual solid propellant experience Usually propellant burn rate increases with increasing fractions of ground oxidizer The mechanism for this unusual response has not been identified to date Formulation ANH-12 Batch SB-94 (HMX)

had the fastest burn rate 0836 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0329 ins at 1000 psia) consistent with acceptable castability Therefore it was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of replacing bamer mill ground AP with the finer fluid energy mill (FEM) ground AP on propellant properties Micromerograph analysis

3-88

270I 050-K STRAND BURN RATES BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

CLASSE HMXZ 1016 040 0 0ashy10

7CLASS AHMX 0762 - 030 Z

z nD 2

z - -

Ce 0508 -020 1 F-I) 0 5 10 15 20

HMX wt

Fig 3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-89

Table 3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)

Strand Burning Rate cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

Strands cured Strands cut 5 x 10 motor Strands cut in RAM-225 from cured firings from cured

Pressure released mold block of block of Ncm 2 (psia) propellant propellant

sprayed with RAMshy225 dried and tested

690 (1000) 0991 (0390) 0721 (0284) 0660 (0260) 0983 (0387)

517 (750) 0876 (0345) - 0662 (0245)

345 (500) 0765 (0301) 0599 (0236) 0549 (0216) 0785 (0309)

172 (250) 0572 (0225) - 0457 (0180)

Pressure 042 027 028 033 exponent

indicated that the fluid energy mill AP had a mass median diameter of 63 Am compared to 90 pm for typical hammer mill ground AP Batch SB-110 (HMX) was made using 1700 wt Class E HMX and 1000 wt of the FEM AP A reference batch SB-98 (HMX) was made using the hammer mill ground AP Strand burn rates and relative castability were detershy

mined on both of the batches Results are shown in Table 3-40 and Fig 3-16

(1) Replacement of the hammer mill ground (9 pm) AP by the FEM ground (63 pm) AP increased strandburn rate to 0950 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0374 ins at 1000 psia) This exceeds the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) Strand pressure exponent appeared to be reduced with use of the FEM ground AP

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of finer ballistic modifier particle size on propellant properties As discussed in the ANAPHTPB propellant development section an attritor mill was used to size reduce the ballistic modifiers ammonium dichroshymate and copper chromite Batch SB-117 (HMX) was made using 200 wt

3-90

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPBbinder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper Chromite

Dimethyl silicone

(1000 cS)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground US Steel with anti-caking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground US Steel with antishycaking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium perchlorate ground

SB-l08 (Reference)

AN-20

1200

1500

200

200

-

2000

-

2900

-

1000

1000

SB-107 SB-109

ANH-19 ANH-21

1185 1185

1500 1500

200 100

200 100

015 015

2000 2000

2900 3100

-

1000 1000

- -

1000 1000

3-91

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations -Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation (Continuation 1)

Relative Castability Excellent Uncastable Mix could not castability be completed

cured up in mix bowl

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0665 (0262) 0673 (0265) -

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0818 (0322) 0808 (0318) -

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 026

Card gap tests

35 cards

55 cards

69 cards 3 positive 3 positive

attritor ground (17 pm) copper chromite 1700 wt Class E HMX and FEM ground (63 pm) AP No ammonium dichromate was used in this batch as a part of the overall effort to achieve the burning rate goal 089

cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with improved performance (Isc)castability and physical properties Reference Batch SB-116 (AN ) was made using as received (21 pm) copper chromite Table 3-41 summarizes results of Brookfield end-of-mix visosity and strand burn rate tests on these two batches These results led to the following conclusions

(1) In an IDP plasticized formulation using only 200 wt CU-0202 P as ballistic modifier coarse ground AN and 63 Im FEM ground AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 m increased the strand burn rate at 690

Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0724 to 0737 cms (0285 to 0290 ins) t_2

(2) No significant change in strand pressure exponent was observed

(3) Castability was good for both batches

3-92

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103

25401 0 1 100

2032 - A CURED IN RAM-225 RELEASED STRAND MOLD - 8

B STRAND CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK

1524- BURNED WITHOUT TREATMENT 6

EU C STRANDS CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK SPRAYED WITH RAM-225 DRIED THEN BURNED ui

1016- 4 0C oD

z 7I- 0 z z z

CA _B

o 0o

z z0508 2

V)

BATCH No SB-89 (HMX)

FOMULATION ANH-9

0254 I I i I 10-1 69 103 138- 207 345 690

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (IIX) Formulation ANH-9

3-93

Table 3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size

Variation (Class E HMX - DOA Plasticizer)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with antishycaking coating)

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with

anticaking coating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative castability

Strand burning rates

at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(at 1000 psia)

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-90 SB-91 SB-93 SB-95

ANH-9 ANH-10 ANH-11 ANH-13

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

1500 1500 1500 1500

4400 2900 1760

- 1500 2640 4400

_

1000 1000 1000 1000

Uncastable Uncastable Marginally Castable castable

- 0678 0678 0516 (0 267 )a (0234)a (0 2 0 3 )a

0953 0859 0859 0665 -(0 3 7 5 )a (0 3 3 8 )a (0 299)a (0 2 6 2 )a

034 035 036

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were cut

from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased

by RAM-225 release agent

3-94

Table 3-39 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX - IDP Plasticizer)

Batch No SB-94 SB-96

Formulation No ANH-12 ANH-14

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticizer) 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium diohromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class E 1500 1500

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 2900

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 1500 4400

Ammonium perchlorate ground 1000 1000

Relative Castability Good castability

Excellent castability

Strand burning rates at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

-

0836 (0 329 )a

0518 (0 204 )a

0655 (0258) a

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were

cut from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased by RAM-225 release agent

3-95

1016 1 040

eE aQCNO

DOA PLASTICIZER

z CI-o 100

lt 0762 030 - I--

IDP PLASTICIZER

z Z

a a z z

--- 1-shy

0508 I-I I I20

cn

0 20 40 60 80 100 FRACTION OF COARSE GROUND AN wt

Fig 3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN

3-96

C

Table 3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations -AP Particle Size Variation (HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

Ammonium perchloriate hammer mill ground (Micromerograph 50 wt point 9 gim)

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (Mieromerograph 50 wt point 63 pm)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 45 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Relative Castability

3-97

SB-98 ANH-16 Reference

1200

1500

200

200 shy

1700

2700

1500

1000

0653 (0257)

0810 (0319)

030

Good

castability

SB-110 ANH-16

1200

1500

200

200

1700

2700

1500

-

1000

0843 (0332)

0950 (0374)

017

Good castability

slightly more viscous than SB-98 (HMX)

1270 1 050

K K

CN4 E 0

1016 040 0

o 0

100

BURN RATE GOAL

z z

= 0762 - 030 D

z z

05081 I I I I 020 40 50 60 70- 80 90 100t

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) gm

Fig 3-16i Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-98

Table 3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Particle Size Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Copper chromite

As received (21 pm)

Attritor ground (17 pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground

Total

Relative castability

Brookfield end-of-mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F) Strand burning rates at 250C

(770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

3-99

SB-116 (Reference) SB-117

ANH-24A ANH-24B

1200 1200

1500 1500

200

- 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1500 1500

1000 1000

10000 10000

Good Good

168 136

0610 (0240) 0627 (0247)

0724 (0285) 0737 (0290)

028 024

As was observed with the ANAPAIHTPB propellant reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burn rates

Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better optimize the ballistic modifier system for the basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB propelshylant Previous to this point in the program the mixed ballisticmodifishyer system of 200 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) with 200 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was used It was desirable to reduce the total ballistic modifier level to less than 400 wt and recover some shy

performance (II delivered) Elimination of AD was also desirable because of its tendency to crosslink the R-45 prepolymer with subsequent degradation of propellant castability and physical properties Batches SB-132 (HMX) and SB-138 (HMX) were made using only as-receivedCU-0202 P as the ballistic modifier at the 200 wt and 300 wt levels respecshytively The objective of testing these two batches was to determine whether the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm

2

(1000 psia) could be achieved by using only CU-0202 P at levels less than 400 wt Brookfield end-of-mix and strandburning rates were measured on both batches Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-42 and they indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate achieved with 300 wt as-received CU-0202 P was 6nly 0810 cms (0319 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(2) Based on extrapolation the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) does not appear achievshyable even at 400 wt as-received CU-0202 P

(3) A mixed ballistic modifier system of AD and CU-0202 P appears necessary to meet the burning rate goal

The third batch SB-134 (HMX) was made using the mixed ballistic modifier system of 100 wt hammer mill ground (72 m) AD and 200 wt as-received CU-0202 P Brookfield viscosity and strand burning rates were also measured on this batch and results are also shown in Table 3-42 They indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate of 0879 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0346 ins at 1000 psia) was achieved with Batch SB-134 (HMX) This almost meets the goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosity of 21 kP at 520C (125 0 F) indicated the propellant had acceptable castability

Limited time and budget did not allow for any additional optimization of the ballistic modifier system Therefore Formulation ANH-33 [Batch SB-134 (HMX)] was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed inthe sections on Scale-Up and Ballistic Evaluation

3-100

---

Table 3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 [m

Ammonium dichromate Hamshymer mill ground 72 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

HMX Class E

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground 63 pm

Brookfield End-of-mix Viscosity kP at 520C (1250F)

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-132

ANH-34

1200

1500

200

2900

1500

1700

1000

10000

33

(500 psia) 0594 (0234)

At 690 Ncm2 0757 (0298) (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

3-101

SB-138 SB-134

ANH-32 ANH-33

1200 1200

1500 1500

300 200

--- 100

2800 2800

1500 1500

1700 1700

1000 1000

10000 10000

Could not 21 measure

0630 (0248) 0615 (0242)

0810 (0319) 0879 (0346)

036 051

In summary the following approaches were investigated as methods

of achievins faster propellant burning rates and the goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncmd (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(1) HMX class (particle size)

(2) HMX level

(3) Dimethyl silicone as ballistic modifier

(4) Finer AN particle size

(5) Finer AP particle size

(6) Finer CU-0202 P particle size

(7) Ballistic modifier type and level

Of these only (1) (2) (5) and (7) proved to be effective approaches

to faster burning rates

c Hazards Classification The Naval Ordnance Station (NOS) did some of the initial propellant hazard classification testing to define the maximum level of HMX which could be used and remain a Class 2 propellant The basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB formulation selected for testing was an 88 wt total solids HTPB (R-45) formulation with 150

wt aluminum and 10 wt ammonium perchlorate Tests were planned on formulations with and without the ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P Table 3-43 summarizes results of these hazard tests These results indicated that 20 wt Class E HMX (15 Mm)in non-ballistic modified formulations gave propellants which marginally met card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards) AP particle size appeared to affect card gap test results No firm conclusions could be made regarding the ballistic modified formulations

This effort to define the maximum HMX level for a Class 2 ballisshytic modified propellant was continued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with AFRPL support Card gap tests made on the ballistic modified formulations reported in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 are summarized in Table 3-44 for convenience

General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Maximum level of Class A HMX is greater than 1000 wt and less than 1500 wt for a ballistic modified formulation

to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

(2) Maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1500 wt and less than 2000 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

3-102

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Ingredients wt

AN (unground) 430 430 4776 4279 390 3862

AP 45p m 100 - - -

AP 6 [m - - 995 995 - -

AP 4 [m - 100- - - - -

AP 2 4m - - - - 100 99

HMX 15 pm 200 200 1493 1990 200 198

Al H-12 150 150 1493 1493 150 1485

HTPB Binder 120 120 1243 1243 120 1287

AD - - - - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

CU-0202 P - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

Lab Safety Tests

Impact sensitivity mm 375 375 350 275 -

Friction kg (lb) gt444 gt444 gt444 gt444 -

(980) (980) (980) (980)

ESD J gt125 L125 125 gt125

Field Safety Tests

Card gap cards 55 to 65 to 0 60 to 35 to 55 to 60 70 - 65 50 60

Cap neg neg neg neg neg neg

3-103

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data (Continuation 1)

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Unconfirmed burning neg neg neg neg neg neg

Critical dia cm (in) gt64 gt64 gt64 gt64 lt89 lt89 (25) (25) (25) (25) (35) (35)

aX-ray of samples showed evidence of voids

Table 3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A with Class E)

Batch No HMX Card Gap

Wt Class Positive Negative Cards

SB-88 10 A - 2 0 - 1 -35

SB-83 15 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-84 20 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-87 10 E - 2 0 - 1 35

SB-85A 15 E - 32 - 2 35

SB-86 20 E 1 - 35 1 70

Class E HMX was selected because higher levels could be incorporated and remain a Class 2 propellant and because it gave the best ballistic properties

3-104

Two additional small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better define the maximum level of Class E HMX The Class E HMX was varied to the 1900 wt and 1700 wt levels for Batches SB-97 (HMX) and SB-98 (HMX) respectively Card gap sensitivity strand burning rates and relative castability were measured in both batches Table 3-45 shows the test results These tests indicated the maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1900 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

The 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches were made varying Class E HIX level to 1500 1700 and 1750 wt Card gap verification tests were made on these batches as shown later in Table 3-49 and test results are summarized in Table 3-46

Results of all the tests indicated the maximum level of Class E IHMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt for a ballistic

) modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

d Processing Studies The relative castability of propellant was observed on the small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) development batches and used in the selection of formulations for evaluation in the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches Brookfield end-of-mix and pot life tests were measured on all of the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches

The coarse Class A HMX (W149 gim) has a better particle size than the fine Class E HMX (15 - 20 pm) for solids packing Consequently the Class A HMX yielded propellants with better castability than the Class E HMX (Table 3-35) However Class E HMX was selected for all the scale-up batches because higher HMX levels could be used and ballistic properties were better (faster burn rates and lower pressure exponents) The level of MX was generally limited by Class 2 card gap constraints before castability became unacceptable

The lower viscosity plasticizer IDP yielded propellants with significantly better castability than the plasticizer DOA with only a slight loss in propellant burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) (Tables 3-38 and 3-39) Therefore IDP was the selected plasticizer

Replacement of the very coarse unground AN prills by coarselyground AN improved castability but reduced propellant burning rate Consequently the fraction of AN coarse ground was limited to 34 to maximize burn rate consistent with good castability (Tables 3-38 and 3-39

Replacement of the hammer mill ground (90 14m) AP by the fluid energy mill ground (63 jim) AP made the propellant more viscous but castability remained good (Table 3-40) This change significantly increased propellant burning rate and made the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) achievable (Fig 3-16) Therefore the fluid energy mill ground AP (63 pm) was selected for use when it became available

3-105

Table 3-45 ANHMXAPAHTPB-Formulation-z HMX Level (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating)

Ammonium nitratecoatse -ground (US Steel with anticaking c6ating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative Castability shy

-

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards

55 Cards

69 Cards

3-166

SB-97 SB98 ANH-15 ANH-16

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1900 1700

-2500 2700

1500 1500

1000 1000

Good Good

castability castability

0678 (0267) 0653 (0257)

0826 (0325) 0810 (0319)

028 030

1---positive

--- 1 positive

4 positive 2 negative

---

---

---

---

---

Table 3-46 JPL Hazard Test Data (Class E)

HMX Batch No

Wt Class

SB-89 (HMX) 15 E

SB-92 (HMX) 15 E

SB-106 (HMX) 175 E

SB-141 (H4X) 17 E

Positive

4

3

I

I

I

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

2

1

Card Gap

Negative Cards

6 0

10 35

2 0

5

--- 10

--- 15

--- 20

--- 27

3 30

5 35

--- 69

2 70

--- 35

--- 60

--- 61

--- 62

3 63

1 65

10 69

3-107

Replacement of the as-received CU-0202 P (21 pm) by attritor ground CU-0202 P (17 pm) did not significantly affect propellant castashybility Since this change increased burning rate by only 2 the asshyreceived (21 pm) CU-0202 P was selected Increasing the Cu-0202 P level from 200 to 300 wt significantly increased propellant viscosity making it less castable (Table 3-42)

Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were shown to signifishycantly improve castability and pot life with the ANAPAlHTPB propellant After checking to determine these materials were compatible and safety properties were adequate these pot-life extenders were incorporated into the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant

e Combustion Problems The problem of incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered speciflc impulse was addressed for the basic ANHMXAPAlHTBP propellant early in the program Two approaches evaluated to improve metal combustion I Land delivered specific impulse were

(1) Use of aluminummagnesium (AlMg) alloys

(2) Replacement of aluminum by magnesium

This work (by NOS) was done concurrently Mith the development -CV of the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant using conventional aluminum For convenience and clarity all of the NOS propellant development work done with the R-45 HTPB binder is reported and discussed in this section

Table 4-47 summarizes results of motor tests on ANHMXAPA1HTPB propellants with no ballistic modifiers Propellant formulation variations made were

(1) Total solids loading (87 to 88 wt )

(2) AP particle size (20 and 200 [m)

(3) HMX (Class E) level (20 and 30 wt )

(4) Metal level (15 to 20 wt ) shy

(5) Metal type (Al -and AlMg alloy)

The motors tested were either 4536-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors or 1814-kg (40-1b) charge (FPC) motors at sea level conditions Corrections to vacuum conditions with E = 685 were made as shown in Table 4-47 General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Motor burning rates at 483 Ncm2 (700 psia) were all in the range of 0356 to 0457 cms (014 to 018 ins) Ballistic modifiers are required to meet burning rate goal of 089 Ncm2 (035 ins) with a pressure exponent of

042

3-108

Table 3-47 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation

Specific Impulse

Propellant Data N-skg (s)

Burning rate at 483 Ncm

2

AP Vacuumd (700 psi)Motor Percent Particle Percent Percent

Typeb of AP Size m of HMX of Metal Type of Metal Delivered c = 685 cms (ins)

TPC 10 200 20 20 Aluminum 19476 (1986) 0356 (014)

20 19 AlMg (9010) 19760 (2015) 21633 (2206) 0381 (015)TPCa 200

TPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 21114 (2153) 22271 (2271) 0381 (015)

TPC 200 20 15 AlMg (9010) 20359 (2076) 20908 (2312) 0356 (014)

0 TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20398 (2080) 22467 (2291) 0356 (014)

TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23134 (2358) 0356 (014)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 21045 (2146) 23222 (2368) 0457 (018)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23242 (2370) 0457 (018)

FPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 19192 (1957) 21898 (2233) 0445 (0175)

00 wt total solids loaded propellant the remainder are 88 wt a87 bTPC are 4536-kg (10-1b) charge motor grains

CFPC are 1814-kg (40-1b) charge motor grains dAll motor tests were made at sea level Correction to vacuum conditi6ns was made as follows

fFdt me + Pa Aeta Vac Isp ms =

CF Creq

Correction to desired expansion ratio (c req) was done by multiplying vac Isp ms by C

CF C act

(2) The maximum vac Isp ms e = 685 obtained for this series of tests were 23242 N-skg (2370 s) This was obtained using 15 wt conventional Al 20 wt Class E HMX and 10 wt 20 jim AP The performance goal was vac Isp ms

E = 71 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(3) Reducing the AP particle size from 200 to 20 gm significantly improved vac Isp ms pound1177 N-skg (C12s)] and increased

burning rate

(4) Increasing the Class E HMX level from 20 to 30 wt signishyficantly increased vac Is ms 686 N-skg (-7 s) However propellant with 30 wt C ass E HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Increasing the metal level from 15 wt to 19 or 20 wt significantly reduced vac inpMs

(6) Replacement of the conventional aluminum by the AlMg alloy

(9010) appeared to give a small performance gain 392 N-skg (14 s) However the data was too limited to draw

firm conclusions

Propellant development effort was continued in an effort to achieve the performance goals The ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P were selected based on work done by JPL In addition finer AP particle sizes were selected based on the ability of this approach to achieve both improved performance and faster burning rates A Class E HMX level of 20 wt O was selected as the maximum to meet card gap requirements for Class 2 propellants based on card gap tests available at that time Table 3-48 summarizes motor test and theoretical performance results on the three ballisttc modified propellant formulations evaluated Formushylation 2A used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system 10 wt 55 Jim AP and 15 wt conventional aluminum Formulation 2Bused 1 wt AD as ballistic modifier 10 wt 10 gm AP and 15 wt AlMg alloy (9010) Formulation 2C used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system no AP and 15 wt magnesium The motor test results shown are all from 45-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors Since several formulation variables were varied between the three formulations it is not possible to isolate just the effect of metal type on propellant performance However the following general conclusions can be made from this work

(1) Formulation 2A which used conventional aluminum was the most promising candidate The vac Isp ms E = 684of 24144 N-skg (2462 s) met the goal of vac Isp Ms E = 71 -2403 N-sks (245 s) Burning rate achieved was 076 cms at 483 Ncm (030 ins at 700 psia) compared to the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with a pressure exponent _04

(2) Formulation 2B which used the AlMg alloy (9010) had a theiretical Isp (1000147) nearly the same as formulashy

tion 2A but Vac Isp msC = 684 was only 23252 N-skg(2371 s) In addition the burning rate was only 053

3-10

---

---

Table 3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured

Propellant No

Ingredients wt

AN

AP

HMX (15 pm)

Al

AlMg alloy (9010)

Mg

AD

CU-0202 P

R-45M

DOA

Theoretical Density gcm 3

(lbin3 )

Theoretical I

(Iooo147 )a Lcm 2 (s)

Measured Isp N-skg (s) at e = 55

2A

410

100 (55 fim)

200

150

10

10

80

40

17051

(00616)

24978

(2547)

22810 (2326)

Measured Vac Is N-skg (s) 24144 corr to E = 68 (2462)

Burn rate at 483 Ncm3

(700 psia) cms 076 (ins) (030)

2B 2C

420 510

100 (10 pm) --shy

200 200

150 --shy

--- 150

10 10

--- 10

100 80

20 40

16829 16027

(00608) (00579)

24958 23997 (2545) (2447)

21310 20113 (2173) (2051)

23252 22673 (2371) (2312)

053 041 (021) (016)

aStandard Conditions Chamber pressure of 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and expanded to 1 atm (147 psia)

3-111

cms at 483 Ncm2 (021 ins at 700 psia) for this formulation This data suggests that there was no performance advantage in using the AlMg alloy compared to conventional aluminum

(3) Formulation 2C which used magnesium as the metal had theoshyretical density and theoretical Isp (1000147) values significantly lower than formulation 2A The measured Isp and burning rates confirmed that this was-the least attractive of the three formulations

This work was ended at this stage of the program Good Isp efficiencies were being achieved with conventional aluminum using 10 wt fine particlesize AP and the selected ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P

f Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Four formulashytions were selected for scale-up evaluation and motor tests throughout the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant development effort Table 3-49 shows these four formulations Major changes in the formulations which were made as a result of the development effort on the small scale were

(1) dhange from DOAt lower viscbsity lasti6izdr IDP to improveshycastability

(2) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH to improve castability and pot life

(3) Reductions of the total ballistic modifier level from 400 wt to 300 wt to improve performance

(4) Selection of 17 wt ClassE HMX to achieve maximum performance and burning rate within the constraint of a Class 2 propellant

(5) Changes in the AN type to the higher density harder prill Monsanto AN to improve castability and burn rate control

(6) Change from hammer mill ground 8-9 gm AP to the finer fluid energy mill ground 63 Itm AP to achieve faster burning rates

All four formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into 5 x 10 motors BATES motors and small-scale samples The motors were successfully tested and results are summarized and discussed in Subsection g Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

3-112

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No SB-89 SB-92 SB-106 SB-141

Formulation No ANH-9 ANH-12 ANH-18 ANH-33

Batch size kg (ib) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Ingredients wt

R-45 polymer 6470 6582 6528 6397

DOA plasticizer 4613

IDP plasticizer --- 4647 4609 4615

)OA plasticizer (HMX coating) 0187 0153 0191 0185

Lirosperse 11 P 0113 0113 0113 0113

UOP-36 0040

DTBH --- --- --- 0040

IPDI 0617 0559 0559 0610

Ammonium dichromate (ground 7 Mm) 200 200 200 100

Copper chromite (as received 21 pm) 200 200 200 200

Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500

--- --- ---

---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil U S Steel Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

U S Steel Monsanto ---

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8-9 Am fluid energy mill ground 63 Am

Totals

Brookfield apparent viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) (Viscosity kPtime after curative addition)

End-of-mix

(Continuation 1)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

1500

4400

1000

10000

2208 2018 2128

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

1500

2900

1500

1000

10000

1609 2819 2929 4139 4149

SB-106 SB-141

ANH-18 ANH-33

104 (230) 113 (250)

1750 1700

2900 2800

1250 1500

1000 --shy1000

10000 10000

1008 708 1418 1318 2228 1527 2438 2137

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Nam 2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm (750 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

20 cards 27 cards 30 cards 35 cards 60 cards 61 cards 62 cards 63 cards

65 cards

(Continuation 2)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

0599 (0236)

0721 (0284)

027

6 negative 4 positive

10 negative

---

---

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

0503 (0198) 0617 (0243) 0691 (0272) 0775 (0305)

031

2 negative 3 positive 1 positive 1 positive 3 negative 5 negative

SB-106

ANH-18

104 (230)

0566 (0223) 0683 (0269) 0767 Co302) 0818 (0322)

027

SB-141

AHN-33

113 (250)

0544 (0214) 0622 (0245) 0719 (0283) 0805 (0317)

037

1 positive 1 positive 2 positive 3 negative

1 positive 1 negative

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type (Continuation 3)

SB-89 SB-92 SB-I06 SB-141Batch No

Formulation No ANH9 ANH-12 ANH-18 AHN-33

Batch size kg (lb) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Card Gap Tests (Contd)

69 cards --- --- --- 10 negative

70cards --- --- 2 negative 6 positive

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770 F) gcm3 (lbin3 ) 16746 (00605) 16359 (00591) 16691 (00603) 16663 (00602)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties

Sm 1cm 2 (psi) --- 49 (71) --- 64

em --- 19 --- 68

44 (64)--- 49 (71) ---Sb Ncm 2 (psi)

68eb --- 19 ---

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-49 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) End-of-mix viscosities and pot life improved as changes were made to IDP plasticizer use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH and Monsanto AN End-of-mix viscosity for batch SB-141 (HMX) was 7 kP at 520C (125 0 F) and pot life was greater than 37 h

(2) Faster burning rates were achieved as the HNX level was increased as the Gulf Oil AN was replaced by US Steel AN and then by Monsanto AN and as the hammer mill ground AP was replaced by the finer fluid energy mill ground AP

(3) Maximum strand burning rate achieved at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) was 081 cms (032 ins) with batch SB-106 (HMX)

(4) Strand pressure exponents on all four formulations were in the range of 027 to 037 Motor pressure exponents were lower than strand pressure exponents These low-pressure exponents are advantageous and meet the goal of lt042

(5) Card gap tests verified that the maximum level-of Class E HMX which meets the card gap requirements for a Class 2 propellant is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt

(6) Measured densities were in the range of 16359 to 16746 gcm3 (00591 to 00605 lbin3) for the four formulations

(7) The JANNAF uniaxial properties were oor with maximum stress values in the range of 44 to 49 Ncm (64 to 71 psi) and strain at maximum stress values in the range of 19 to 68

g Ballistic Evaluation ANHMXAPAIHTPB Systems The candidate alternate propellant containing HMX was evaluated in BATES motor firings at three levels of HMX 150 170 and 175 The 150 HMX formulation yielded the highest measured Isp Theoretical calculations had shown 170 to 175 to be optimum for maximum Isp Data from the BATES motor tests suggests that the actual optimum HMX level is somewhere between 15 and 16 This level of HMX in the propellant has been demonstrated to be within the Class 2 requirement The ballistic test data for the three HMX systems follows

(1) Formulation ANH-12 (150 HMX) Figure 3-17 shows the burning rate KN and pressure exponent for this propellant The BATES motor test data is summarized in Table 3-50

(2) Formulation ANH-39 (170 HMX) The ballistic evaluation test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-18 and Table 3-51

3-117

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104 61524 1 1 1

41016-

-2 2lt E0508-

0 KN -IA BATES MOTOR DATA KN

100 1 -1 0264 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 1000 10

0 0203_ 800 -8 0152 n 0310152 600 6

D 0102 - 400 -4

0051 - 200 - 2

I I I I 100025 1 -2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895 2

PRESSURE Ncm

Figure 3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92

3-n18

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No E-1466 E-1467

Test Date Nov 14 1975 Nov 26 1975

BatchChange No SB-921 SB-922

Nozzle Bt initial 4699 3764 cm (in) (1850) (1482)

Nozzle Dt final 4374 3571 cm (in) (1722) (1406)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 2981 2979 (6572) (6567)

Wp expended kg (ib) 29395 2940

(64806) (6482)

wt expended 986 987

Web thickness cm (in) 45789 4610 (18207) (1815)

tb (burn time) s 735 586

ta (action time) s 764 624

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 310 531 (450) (770)

PC max Ncm2 (psia) 386 731 (560) (1060)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 376 702 (545) (1018)

AP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26245 41056 (38066) (59547)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26779 42285 (38840) (61329)

3-119

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

Pa (3P dttb) Ncm2

(psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

It (1F dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion Ratio

E-1466

Nov 14 1975

SB-921

3511 (5179)

0630 (0248)

2253

2411

14507 (47594)

962

6193679 (1392395)

842675 (189441)

6198003 (1393367)

207921 (21202)

9249

237546 (24223)

70

E-1467

Nov 26 1975

SB-922

7006 (10162)

0787 (0310)

3511

3689

14983 k49156)

1006

6349309 (1427382)

1083497 (24358)

6559790 (147470)

220218 (22456)

916

235526 (24017)

70

3-120

PRESSURE psia

10 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 104 1524 I 6

1016 4

0508 0- 2

u KN A BATES MOTOR TESTS N

0254 - 1000 10lt 2 0 5x 10 MOTOR TESTS 8 - 1

0203800g- 8

Z 0152 n 037 600 6 z z

0102 400 4

0051 -- 200 2

I I1 -2

0025 69 138 345 690 1379 t 3447 6895

-PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 AHHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-141

3-121

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 PropellantTable 3-51

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

E-1490E-1489Run No

62376 62476Test Date

SB-1412 SB-1411BatchChange No

352684572Nozzle Dt initial cm (in) (1800) (13885)

3444Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 4531

(1784) (1356)

30133017W loaded kg (ib) (6651) (6643)

29332938Wp expended kg (lb) (6477) (6466)

97339738 wt expended

Web thickness cm (in) 4633 4643 (1824) (1828)

570747tb (burn time) s

638 ta (action time) S

794

Pc initialNem2 (psia) 345 683 (500) (990)

362 Pc maximum Ncm2 (psia) 752 (525) (1090)

Pc final Ncm2 N(psia) 324 649 (470) (942)

41665fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 25961 (37654) (6043)

ft dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26554 42802 (6208)(38514)

Pc ( P dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 347 731 (524) (1060)

3-122

Table 3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

r at P0 cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

F dt (tb) Ns (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

it cfF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion ratio (E)

De cm (in)

2Ae cm (in2 )

3-123

E-1489 E-1490

62376 62476

SB-1412 SB-1411

0620 0815 (0244) (0321)

2330 3989

2395 4077

143Q7 13540 (46940) (44421)

945 895

5979680 6258348 (1344286) (1406933)

8007 10978 (1800) (2468)

60958 64441 (13704) (14487) 202056 21388

(20604) (2181)

887 872

23183 22810 (2364) (2326)

716 716

12233 9426 (4816) (3711)

117522 69781 (18216) (10816)

(3) Formulation ANH-18 (175 HMX) The ballistic evaluation

test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-19 and Table 3-52

h Summary Two ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant formulations were developed that conformed to the program constraints for 3 wt HCl in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards classification These two formulations are ANH-12 (15 wt Class E HMX) and ANH-33 (17 wt Class E HMX) Table 3-53 summarizes and compares the properties of these two formulations versus the program goals Both formulations met the goals for pressure exponent and hazard classification but not the goal for burning rateor delivered vacuum I

The following summarizes the status of the ANH4XAPAlHTPB propellant development

(1) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic propellants

(2) Demonstrated the propellant is Class 2 with levels of Class E HMX up to 17 wt

(3) Demonstrated good castability and pot life greater than 37 h for formulations with 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(4) Successfully loaded and test fired 45-kg (10-1b) motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with formulations containing 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(5) Demonstrated a delivered vacuum Isp (E = 716) of 23752 N-skg (2422 s) with formulation ANH-12

(6) Demonstrated a BATES motor burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) and a pressure exponent of 037 with formulation ANH-33

(7) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

(8) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 150 and 170

11 Baseline PBAN Propellant Modification

The current baseline propellant system in the Shuttle SRM is

an 86 solids 16 aluminum PBAN propellant developed by the Thiokol Corporation This baseline propellant has a burning rate of approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) pressure In order to simplify the task of matching the burning rates of the alternate propellant and the PBAN baseline-propellant at 400Ncm2 (580 psia)

-3-124

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 103

1524 I 6

1016 - 4

A BATES MOTOR DATA 0508 - 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 20508 n =031

E -_ Ko

U IN

u- 0254 - -1000 10shy0203 -800 8

oD 0 z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0102 - 400 4

0051 200 2

0025 I I I0 - 2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Figure 3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-106

3-125

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HNX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

Nozzle Dt initial 4592 3543 cm (in) (1808) (1395)

Nozzle Dt final 4463 3388 cm (in) (1757) (1334)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3022 3023 (6662) (6664)

Wp expended kg (ib) 2956 2957

(6516) (6519)

Wt expended 9781 9782

Web thickness cm (in) 4615 4615 (1817) (1817)

tb (burn time) s 788 - 628

ta (action time) s 818 665

PC initial Ncm2 (psia) 248 483 (360) (700)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 352 717 (510) (1040)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 296 622 (430) (902)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 262146 42991 (380212) (62353)

fp dt (ta) N-scm 2 (lb-s) 265874 44074 (385619) (63924)

3-126

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HMX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 1471 3026 (4825) (9929)

r at Pc cms (ins) 0587 0734 (0231) (0289)

KN initial 2353 3953

KN average 2421 4131

C ms (fts) 14159 13741 (46425) (45083)

C efficiency 945 916

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 599055 6320560 (134673) (1420919)

F (fF dttb) N (ib) 7602 100645 (1709) (22626)

it (fF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s) 608823 6498885 (136869) (1461008)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 201478 215001 (20545) (21924)

Isp efficiency 8901 8868

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s) 231761 229240 (23633) (23376)

Expansion ratio 71 72

3-127

Table 3-53 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goal

Achieved Value

Alternate Propellant SB-92 (HMX) SB-141 (HMX)

Property Goal ANH-12 ANH-33 (15 HMX) (17 HMX)

Burning Rate at 089 0785 0813 690 Ncm 2 (035) (0309) (032) (1000 psia) BATES Motor cms (ins)

Pressure Exponent lt042 032 037 BATES motor

Delivered Vacuum 2403 23732 23183 Isp N-skg (s) (gt245) (2422) (2364)

71)

HCl in Exhaust 3

Meets Card Gap Requirement for Class 2 yes yes Class 2 required (negative (negative

at 30 cards) at 30 cards)

pressure it was decided to miodify the baseline propellant system to

meet a burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) This modified baseline applies to the dual propellant concept with the alternate propellant only It does not apply to the current Shuttle design requirements The 081 cms (03 ins) burning rate has been achieved and demonstrated in 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings The modified PBAN formulation is referred to in this report as the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

In modifying the basic PBAN formulation to meet the new burning

rate requirement a study was made of the effect on the burning rate of adjusting the Fe203 burning rate catalyst concentration and the

particle size blend of the AP oxidizer The desired burning rate was achieved with a formulation containing a biomodal blend of

Table 3-54 gives the final formulationoxidizer and 0 Fe203 the density and some burning characteristics of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

3-128

Table 3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend

Ingredients Wt

Ammonium perchlorate

200 pm 4900 10 pm 2100

Aluminum (Alcoa 1230) 1600

PBAN polymer 1204

DER-331 196

10000

Density 2500 (770F) = 17743 gcm3 (00641 lbin3 ) Burn Rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 081 cms (032 ins) Pressure exponent n = 0228 at I

345 Ncm 2 (00 psia) lt Pc lt 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

The burning rate of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant was verified by test firing several 5 x 10 motors using 45 kg (-10 lb) of propellant over a range of pressures Figure 3-20 shows the burning rates and corresponding Kn values The burning rate equation for this modified PBAN propellant based on the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings is

r = 00668 PC0228

3-129

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 8104

1524 6

1016- 4

0508 - 2

E K - 0 5x 10 MOTOR DATAshy

0254 - 1000 10 - 1

0203 n = 0228 800 8 z 0152- a = 00668 600 6

z z 0102 -400 4

200 20051

0025 _I _I I I 10-2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant)

Batch No SB-78

3-130

SECTION IV

UNWORKED AREAS

The program as originally planned included a significant effort in the development of the candidate alternate propellant physical propshyerties and checks to verify adequacy of candidate alternate propellant in the bipropellant grain The reduction of funds and scopeof the program left many of these tasks unworked If the alternate propelshylant concept for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Motor is pursued on another program then the following unworked areas should be worked

(1) Candidate alternate propellant physical property improvement

(2) Physical property characterization of unaged alternate

propellant

(3) Aging of alternate propellant

(4) Bipropellant interface bond unaged and aged

(5) Alternate propellant insulation interface bond unaged and aged

(6) Performance tests at altitude on candidate alternate propellant

(7) Motor tests with bipropellant grain

(8) Characterization of alternate propellant safety properties

The generally poor physical properties (primarily low strain) measured with both the ANAPAlHTPB and the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propelshylants are believed due primarily to the following causes

(1) Poor bond of the HTPB binder to the oxidizer particles

AN and HMX

(2) Crosslinking of the R-45 HTPB polymer through the double bonds caused by the acidity of AN

The approach planned to solve the poor bonding properties to the oxidizer particles was development of bonding agents for both the AN and the HMX Aerojet Solid Propulsion Company has demonstrated significantly improved physical properties in HMXAPAlHTPB propellants using polyureas as bonding agents Epoxides and polyureas were considered as candidate bonding agents for the AN Development of an acid scavengershywas considered as one of the approaches to the second cause of the poor physicals

4-1

SECTION V

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this alternate propellant development effort led to the following general conclusions

(1) It is technically feasible to minimize (lt_3 wt ) release of HCl above 1981 km (65000 ft)

(2) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants Formushylation ANH-12 is the best formulation developed to date

(3) Propellant with 17 wt Class E HMX meets card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(4) The basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant is the second most promshyising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants

(5) More than 1000 wt AP (gt3 HCI in propellant exhaust) is required in the ANAPAlHTPB propellant to meet the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) Formulation AN-71 with 2000 wt AP is the best formulation of this type developed to date

(6) The basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant (0 HCl) is the least promising candidate and probably not viable for achieving program goals

(7) A few of AP is essential to achieve good aluminum comshybustion

(8) Good castability and acceptable pot life were achieved with all three basic alternate propellants

(9) Additional development effort is needed to improve the physical properties of any of the candidate propellants

(10) The small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justify the potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradashytion

(11) The Monsanto phase stabilized E-2 AN is the preferred AN type because it has the best physical and handling propershyties at comparable cost compared to other AN types

(12) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 15 and 17

5-I

(13) With additional effort to optimize the formulation with regard to HMX level burning rate modifier level and oxidizer particle size the program goals ban be met with an ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant system

5-2

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM

SOLUBILITY OF MTN INI HYDROCARBON BINDER

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

MMORANDUM

From 2051BCTo 563 Via 205

Subj Solubility of MTN in hydrocarbon binder

1 A study was conducted to determine if MTN could be used in the R45 binder system for the NASA II propellant Dicetyladipate (DOA) would be used for a co-solvent

2 Figure 1 is a portion of a phase diagram for the MTN-DOA-R45 system Areas to the right of the curve are two phase Areas to the left of the curve are single phase The effect of temperature is also shown

3 For Figure 2 TP90B was used instead of DOA TP90B is not as effective a co-solvent as DOA

4 Beccause PPG-1225 (a polypropylene glycol) is soluble both in R45 afidMTN it also was invesrigated PFG-1225 has an advantage over DOA in that it is a reactive polymer and could contribute to the mechanical strength as well as providingco-solubility In Figure 3 a 5050 mixture of R45 and PGshy1225 was used for the starting material The solubility of MTN was determined Because PPG-1225 was not a very goodco-solvent DOA was added to enhance the solubility Areas to the right of the curve are two phase and areas to the left of the curve are single phase

5 For Figure 4 a starting material of 733 R-45 and 261 PPG-1225 was used DOA was used to enhance the solubility of MTN in the system

6 It was determined that adiponitrile was not solulle in R45 and therefore could not be used to replace DOA

7 It was determined that R-18 (a polyglycol adipate) was not soluble in R45 and therefore could not be used to replacePPG-1225

8 A sample from Figure 1 was cured with IPDI This will be used to evaluate the long term effect of the nitrate ester on the binder system

Enclosure (1)

A-i

OrNA PALi I

1

ROOM--H- 2 - I

____

-OM I H j 1 35 TEMPERATURE i TI I ItI

I I I I

25

I 3 0 Z _--_ _ _

i i ii

5 n

JI t II it

t - -- -

151 1 1H - IL I

i s _ _

I- III I I I

715

MTffN 20 2 P

Figure 1 So bility of DOA and TN plusmnn R-A5

A-2

- -

40

Lj

r -

11- f

- - iutm

30 HH

-4-

__I_ ____

~ I

~vt

_

[ I_ _ iJ

25 _ _ _

1 1kH I __ _ _ _- _ _ __ _ _

-H 71

- r T--- W 4J-W-L -- t ___ __

_ _ _ __ _ _

q----i- -

52

Figure2 Solubility o f P9BadM1 nR4

A-3

iplusmn II1 -shyI~hhiI4plusmnplusmnt~~t~ -

LL J-

rO zt_-il 4 it-T i -- - -- --a -- 4- shy

-- 4 tL ---L-C-- 1 ------ 13-F- --shy

--- 4 i

I _

I I --0F

L II

it I _ _ _- _ I___

I- - -- - - - ---- shy--_ _ __ __-L J _ _

I - i t1 hIIt -____I j I

-+4 4 1 - - - -I 7 _ -J shy______ _ 2---2--I_lc_

L L rI-T- r

4 -I - -t -- u

10 15 20 25 30 N

Figure 3 Solubility of DOA and LMN in 50 R-4550 PG-1225

A-4

1

35 f

it-lt-ir

II I II

303i-- h

4o

z5-11144_FLI Lb deg T - shy i

bull

25

- -

20

I

- i11 fI1I

Ii JIf j -shy

1 iifIF

I I j I

dstkj tji--4

-4--4 1

1

I0tLLIL t

I

1wi

IFI 4 I

r

iiL -shy plusmn4 4 - H _

64211

I

L3

M -44

t

-i-

__

5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 4 ltSolubility of DOA and MTN in 733 R-45267 PPG-1225

A-5

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

9 -Ifan 88 (or 84) solids loaded 6 polymeric binder system will give acceptable physical properties then the

following formulations should be investigated

R-45 PPG1225 DA MT__N Al AP 1HM AN

10 4360 - -40 20 15 20 44 16 36 24 15 10 20 43

5360 - 40 20 15 10 10 44 1-6 36 24 15 10 10 53

15 10 20 3960 - 66 34 44 16 62 38 15 10 20 39

To properly evaluate these they should be compared to

AL AP HMK ANR-45 DOA 5360 60 15 10 20

10 53100 20 15 20

A quick look at some of the theoretical results to date indishycate that these substit-utions of - MTNfor Inert polymer -may result ina gain of about18 pounds seclb in impulse and a gain of 0001 poundscu in in density

C EJOHNSON

Copy to 205 2051BC 2051C1 TDI

A-6

PU BLICATION79-29

Page 6: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS

AD ammonium dichromate

AFRPL Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory

Ae exit area

Al aluminum

A1203 aluminum oxide

Afros Alrosperse

AN ammonium nitrate

AP ammonium perchlorate

BATES Ballistic Test and Evaluation System

C characteristic exhaust velocity

CU-0202 P copper chromite catalyst (trade name of Harshaw Chemical Co)

De exit diameter

DOA dioctyl adipate

DSC differential scanning calorimeter

Dt throat diameter

ESD electrostatic discharge

ETS Edwards Test Station

DTBH 25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone

eb elongation at break

em elongation at maximum stress

E expansion ratio

F thrust

F average thrust

FeF3 ferric fluoride

Fe203 iron oxide

FEM fluid energy mill

iv

HCI hydrogen chloride

HMX cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine

HTPB hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene-

IDP isodecyl pelargonate

IPDI isophorone diisocyanate

Isp0 specific impulse sea level optimum Pc 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) Isp ms measured specific impulse

it total impulse

KP potassium peroblorate

KN ratio of propellant burn area to throat area

kP kilopoise (1 kP = 100 N-sm2)

Mg magnesium

iam microns

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

n pressure exponent

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOS Naval Ordnance Station (Indian Head Md)

Pa ambient pressure

PHAN polybutadiene acrylic acid acrylonitrile terpolymer

Pe exit pressure

PC chamber pressure

PC average chamber pressure

PPG-1225 polypropylene glycol

Protech 2002 CSD proprietary metal-deactivating antioxidant (trade name)

r burning rate

hydroxy-terminated polyester

R-45M hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene

v

R-18

Sb tensile strength at break

SL opt sea level optimum

Sm maximum tensile strength

SRM solid rocket motor

ta action time

tb web burn time

tEWAT time at end of web action time

TMETN 111-trimethylolethane trinitrate

RAM-225 silicone oil in solvent (release agent)

UOP-36 N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine

UV ultraviolet

Nweight flow rate

W p Propellant weight

Zr Zirconium

p density

vi

ABSTRACT

This report documents the work done by the Caltech-Jet PropulsionLaboratory of NASA for the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA on a Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program The work was done as a Phase I follow-on effort to a previous Phase 0 feasibility study The program was designed to investigate three candidate propellant systems for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) which would eliminate or greatly reducethe amount of HC produced in the exhaust of the Shuttle SRM Ammonium nitrate was selected for consideration as the main oxidizer with ammonium perchlorate and the nitramine cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine (HMX) as secondary oxidizers The amount of ammonium perchlorate used was limited to an amount which would produce an exhaust containing no more than 3 HC1

Development work was carried out on three basic candidate propellantsystems (1) a mixed oxidizer of ammonium nitrate and ammonium perchlorate (2) a mixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate and HMX and (3) amixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate ammonium perchlorate and HMX All three systems contained 15 aluminum powder and had a total solids loading of 88 A urethane binder based on a hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene cured with a diisocyanate was selected as the binder system

The first and third propellant systems outlined above were developed to the point of successful scale-up and loading of 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes and successful test firing of 45-kg (10-1b) test motors and 32-kg(70-1b) BATES motors The second propellant system the ANHMX oxidizer system received only very limited development due to a out-back in both the funds and schedule time initially planned for this program All three propellants had satisfactory processing characteristics however at the 88 solids loading

The first and third propellant systems (the ANAP and the ANHMXAPoxidizer systems) were both also subjected to hazard testing and were demonstrated to conform to Class 2 hazard classification with HMX levels up to 17 wt in the HMX-containing propellant The second oxidizer combination system (the ANHMX) was not characterized as to hazards classification for the reasons mentioned earlier

The utilization of the low-Hl-producing alternate propellant was planned to be in ccmbinatidn with the current baseline PBAN propellantin a dual propellant design Therefore mutual compatibility between the two propellants was essential In order to lessen the severity of the burning rate requirement for the alternate propellant it was decided to decrease the burning rate specification for the PBAN baseline propellant to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) A modified baseline PBAN propellant formulation was therefore developed to conform to the lower burning rate specification It should be pointed out here that this modified baseline propellant system applies only to the dual propellantgrain design and does not relate in any way to the specifications of the present system being developed for the current Shuttle SRM The ballistic properties of the modified baseline PBAN propellant were demonstrated in several 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

vii

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION - 1-1

II SUMMARY- 2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPA1HTPB ------------------------- 2-2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXAlHTPB ------------------------ 2-2

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB --------------------- 2-2

D SYSTEM NO 4 MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE --------------- 2-3

III PHASE I PROGRAM -------------------------------------------- 3-1

A OBJECTIVE -------------------------------------------- 3-1

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS ---------------------------------- 3-1

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS ------------------------- 3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA ------------------------------------- 3-2

E PROGRAM APPROACH -------------------------------------- 3-2

F NOS PARTICIPATION ------------------------------------- 3-5

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE ------------ ---------------------- 3-5

H DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------- 3-6

IV UNWORKED AREAS --------------------------------------------- 4-1

V CONCLUSIONS ------------------------------------------------ 5-1

APPENDIX

A SOLUBILITY OF MTN IN HYDROCARBON BINDER -------------- A-i

Figures

3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB --------- 3-14

3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5 AP in ANAPAlHTPB --------- 315

ix

3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPAlHTPB -------------- 3-16

3-4 Specific Volume- of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature--------------------------------------- 3-26

3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ---------------------- 3-31

3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Gulf AN) ------------------- 3-39

3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-40

3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ---------------------------- 44

3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73 ---------------- 57

3-10 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74 ------ 3-58

3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTBP Propellants ---------------------------- 3-65

3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140 --------------- 74

3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-89

3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (HMX) Formulation ANH-9 ----------------------------------- 3-93

3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN ---------- 3-96

3-16 Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------ 3-98

3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92 -------------------------------------- 3-118

3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-11 ------------------------------------- 3-121

3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-l06 ------------------------------------- 3-125

x

3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant) Batch No SB-78 -------------------------------------- 3130

Tables

21 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ---------------------------------- 2-4

22 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-5

23 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-6

3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN ------------------------------------------- 3-7

3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN --------------------------------------- 3-9

3-3 Propellant Exhaust Composition ----------------------- 3-13

3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations ----------------------------------- 3-18

3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-20

3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-21

3-7 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received Properties ------------------------------------------- 3-23

3-8 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics -------------------------------------- 3-24

3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-28

3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P---------------------------------------- 3-32

3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-33

3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPA1HTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-36

3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-38

xi

3-14 Evaluation of-Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 42

3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 43

3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants -------------------------- 45

3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------- 48

3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------ 3-50

3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB

Propellants ------------------------------------------ 3-52

3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations --------- 54

3-21 BATES-Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant ---- 3-59

3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant ---- 3-61

3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Level Variations ----- 3-66

3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (2 Ballistic Modifier) ------------------- 3-68

3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation ---------- 3-70

3-26 BATES Motor Test Data Summary AN-71 Propellant ------ 3-72

3-27 AN4APAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goals --------------------------------------------- 3-75

3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests -Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------ 3-76

3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-77

3-30 ANHMXHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX) --------------- 3-79

3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------------ 3-81

3-32 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHNXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-82

xii

3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests ----------------------------------------shy 3-83

3-34 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) ------------------------------shy 3-85

3-35 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX) -----------------------------shy 3-87

3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)-----------shy 3-90

3-37 ANHNXADHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation ----------------------------- 3-91

3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX DOA Plasticizer)------------- 3-94

3-39 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX IDP Plasticizer)------------- 3-95

3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Particle Size Variation (MX) ------- ------------------------- 3-97

3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - BallisticModifier Particle Size Variation ------------------------------ 3-99

3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-101

3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data --------------------------------- 3-103

3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A With Class E)---------------------------------------- 3104

3-45 ANHMXAPAiHTPB Formulation - HMX Level (Class E HMX) ---------------------------------------- 3-106

t46-PL Hazard Test Data (Class E)----------------------- 3-107

M3-47 NOS Space ShuttleAlternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation ----------------------- 3-109

3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured -------- 3-111

3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

ANHMXAPHTPB Propellant Type ----------------------- 3-113

3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant ---- 3-119

3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-33 Propellant ---- 3-122

3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-18 Propellant ---- 3-126

xiii

3-53 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties-vs Goal ----------------------------------- 3-128

3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend --------------------------- --------------------- 3-129

xiv

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

This report presents results from the JPL study to investigatethe feasibility of developing an acceptable alternate propellant systemfor the Shuttle solid rocket motor (SEM) boosters based on the non-chlorine containing oxidizer ammonium nitrate (AN) The following basic criteria for this Phase 0 feasibility study were established by the NASA-MSFC

(1) A five-month feasibility study would be undertaken

(2) Any candidate propellants must conform to a hazards classishyfication of Class 2 as determined by card gap tests

(3) The propellant exhaust must not contain more than 3 HC Zero HCl was to be the goal

Following the above guidelines the JPL began a Phase Zero fiveshymonth feasibility program in September of 1974 (Ref 1) JPL was directedby MSFC to investigate four basic propellant systems mutually agreed upon by MSFC and JPL These four basic propellant systems were the following

(1) AN20 Albinder

(2) AN10 Albinder

(3) AN5 AP20 Albinder

(4) AN5 AP10 Albinder

Toward the end of the Phase 0 program the above four basic proshypellants had been developed to a point of scale-up of each formulation to 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes loading and test firing of 227-kg(5-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests Programresults at this point had demonstrated that

(1) Good processability of an 88 solids loaded ammonium nitrate propellant was possible (Previous to this workthe maximum solids achieved with ammonium nitrate systems was approximately 80)

(2) A few percent (5 to 10) of ammonium perchlorate as a co-oxidizer in the ammonium nitrate systems was essential to satisfactory aluminum combustion

(3) An aluminum content of 20 in the ammonium nitrate system was considerably above optimum for maximum delivered specific impulse

With these results serving as new guidelines a fifth formulation was developed and evaluated in BATES motor tests This propellant formulation

1-1

was an 88 solids formulation of the following composition 63 AN10 AP15 Al12 HTPB binder

The main conclusion drawn from the results of this five-month feasibility study was that with the necessary time and funds the develshyopment of an alternate propellant system for the Shuttle SRM based largely on ammonium nitrate as the oxidizer was feasible The fifth propellant described above was selected as a baseline candidate system and served as the basis for establishing the goals and criteria for a Phase I follow-on effort to this feasibility study

The concept for the utilization of the alternate propellant was a dual propellant solid rocket motor -The Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor would be manufactured containing the alternate low-HCl propellant first as an outer layer of propellant followed by an inner layer of the current PBAN propellant modified to the new burning rate requirement During a Shuttle vehicle launch the baseline PBAN propellant would burn for the first phase of Shuttle Booster operation At an altitude of approxshyimately 1981 km (65000 ft) the PBAN propellant would be expended and the burning transitioned into the low-HCl (less than 3 by weight of the exhaust products) alternate propellant The feasibility of a satisshyfactory transition from a propellant with an all-ammonium perchlorate oxidizer to one consisting primarily of ammonium nitrate oxidizer was also demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by successfully manufacshyturing and test firing a dual propellant BATES motor charge

1-2

SECTION II

SUMMARY

This summary is a general over-view of the Alternate Propellant Program A more detailed summary of each respective area of effort is included in the main body of this report The primary objective of the program was to develop a candidate alternate propellant for the Shuttle SRM boosters which would eliminate or minimize the HCl in the exhaust from the solid propellant boosters during operations above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude A set of program constraints was defined to serve as guidelines for the Phase I program effort Among the constraints was the requirements of a Class 2 hazards classification for any candidate propellant The detailed constraints have been outlined in the foregoing pages Along with these program guidelines specific goals were estabshylished that were as follows

(1) Propellant burning rate = 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) Propellant pressure exponent of the burning rate lt 042

(3) Vacuum delivered specific impulse gt 2402 N-skg (245 s) at an expansion ratio of 716

(4) Matched burning rates of the alternate propellant and the baseline PBAN propellant system at 400 Ncm2 (580 psia)

(5) HCl content of the propellant exhaust lt 3

Goal (4) also introduced the requirement of modifying the burning rate of the existing Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a burning rate requirement consistent with the foregoing goals for the alternate proshypellant The burning rate requirement for the modified Shuttle baseline propellant PBAN propellant was established to be 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) chamber pressure

Three basic propellant systems were defined as candidate systems to be developed within these constraints and guidelines The three systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

Based on the results from the Phase 0 program that preceded this Phase I program it was established that the aluminum content would be held constant at 15 wt in all formulations Also the AP content of the No 1 and No 3 system was to be 10 A status summary of each of the three alternate propellant systems and the modified PBAN Shuttle baseline propellant follows

2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPAlHTPB

This propellant system contains 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) and 15 aluminum powder The development has progressed through the static testing of 32-kg (70-1b) propellant charges in the BATES motor static testing being limited to sea level conditions A vacuum delivered Isp at an expansion ratio eof 70 corrected from the sea level data of 2281 N-skg (2326 s) has been demonstrated This measured value of Is is equivalent to 888 of the theoretical value at the test condiions A burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) of 0546 cms (0215 ins) with a pressure exponent of the burning rate of 0278 has also been demonstrated with BATES motor firings As can be seen the Isp and burning rate goals have not been attained whereas the pressure exponent goal has been exceeded by a considerable margin It is doubtful at this point whether the Isp or the burning rate goals can be achieved with this basic system within the present program conshystraints One way of achieving the ballistic goals would be to increase the AP content of this propellant To do so however would increase the HC content of the exhaust above that of the current exhaust conshystraint of not more than 3 wt of HC1

In order to meet the specific impulse and burning rate goals a propellant formulation containing 20 wt of AP was developed and tested first in 45-kg (10-1b) motors followed by two 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings The specific impulse goal of 2402 N-hkg (245 s) was attained with this propellant The burning rate at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) exceeded the 089-cms (035-ins) goal A burning rate of 097 cms (038 ins) was measured The pressure exponent measure was 048 which is higher than the goal However it is believed that this pressure exponent can be reduced The HC1 content in the exhaust at an expansion ratio of 716 is calculated to be 6 wt This 6 HC1 still represents an 80 reduction in the HC1 content from that of the baseline PBAN propellant system The-hazards classification of the ANAPA1HTPB system is Class 2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXA1HTPB

This system contains 15 aluminum also but no AP Due to a cutback in projected program funds however thedecision was made to discontinue the development of this system This decision was made very early in the development phase of this propellant and therefore no useful ballistic data is available at this time

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB

Of the three alternate propellant systems initially planned for development this system is the best candidate to date for meeting all the program goals Theoretical calculations showed that the maximum specific impulse for this propellant system was in the range of 170 to 175 HMX (Table 3-2) Therefore this system with three levels of HMX was developed scaled up to 113-kg (250-1b) mixes and loaded and test fired in 45-kg (10-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b)

2-2

BATES motor firing Of the three levels of HMX evaluated in motor firing the highest ISD was measured with the formulation containing 15 wt HMX showing that the experimental optimum HMX level- is somewhat less than 17 wt for this system The 15 and 17 wt HMX formulations were demonstrated to be Class 2 whereas the 175 wt HMX propellant was borderline Class 7

Preliminary results from Crawford Bomb burning rates showed a burning rate of 0950 cms (0374 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) for the 17 wt HMX formulation Time did not permit verifying this burning rate in motor tests prior to committing to the scale-up and loading of the 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors However indications -were that the 089-cms (035-ins) burning rate would be achieved in motor tests with 3 ballistic modifier in the formulation -- a cutback from the 4 in the other two HMX formulations In the interest of time a reduction in the ballistic modifier (a mixed burning rate catalyst) of 1 was made in the scale-up propellant batch from which the BATES motors were loaded Unfortunately this was too large a reduction in modifier and test results from firing the BATES motors showed a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) for the 17 wt HMX formulation (ANH-33)

The formulations of the five candidate alternate propellants and the modified PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 2-1 Table 2-2 lists the theoretical ballistic properties of the six propelshylants and also the HCi and A1203 (particulates) contents Table 2-3 summarizes the measured performance values as determined by BATES motor firings The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions with nozzle expansion ratios of 716 The measured sea level values were then corrected to vacuum values by the following equation

PeAe I vac ms =-I5 pact ms

D SYSTEM NO i MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE

The work statement of this Alternate Propqllant Program also called for modifying the current Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) while not changing the major ballistic properties such as I__ of the system This effort has been completed and the 081-cms (032-ins) burning rate met and demonstrated in motor firings The desired modification was accomplished by removing the iron oxide burningshyrate catalysts (Fe203 ) and adjusting the particle size blend of the oxidizer The burning-rate equation for this modified baseline is r = 00668 Pc0 228

A detailed discussion of the three candiate alternate propellant systems as well as the total program effort follows

2-3

Ingredients

Solids

AN

AP

HMX (Class E)

Al

Fe203

AD

CU-0202 P

Binder

HTPBe

PBANd

Table 2-1 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

TP-H1148a AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

86 88 88 88 88 88

-- 5900 5100 44o0 4300 4150

6960 1000 2000 1000 1000 1000

-- -- -- 1500 1700 1750

1600 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

040 b -- -- -- -shy

-- 200 -- 200 100 200

-- 200 200 200 200 200

-- 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

1400 -- -- -shy

aCurrent Shuttle baseline propellant also to be adjusted

bTo be adjusted

CCured with a diisocyanate (IPDI)

dCured with an epoxy (Der-331)

Table 2-2 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Parameter TP-H1148 AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Tf K 3471 2695 2845 2748 2765 2756

Te K

C ms (fts)

Isp0 N-skg (s)

2327

1371 (5155)

25723 (2623)

1563

1481 (4860)

24203 (2468)

1678

1568 (4949)

24624 (2511)

1570

1505 (4937)

24507 (2499)

1575

1513 (4965)

24634 (2512)

1571

1509 (4950)

24556 (2504)

U Is vac (a E 716)N-skg (s)

27135 (2767)

25684 (2619)

26115 (2663)

26007 (2652)

26144 (2666)

26066 (2658)

HC in exhaust 209 303 61 303 303 303

A1203 in exhaust 302 283 283 283 283 28

Table 2-3 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Ballistic Property

Program Goal

AN-25

Candidate Propellant Test Resultsa

AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

C ms (fts) - 1432 1460 1450 1431 1415

(4700) (4791) (4759) (4694) (4643)

C efficiency - 953 972 962 945 945

Isp vac at E = 716 N-skg (s)

_gt2403 (245)

22849 (2330)

24026 (2450)

23752 (2422)

23183 (2364)

23173 (2363)

Isp efficiency 888 923 912 887 8901

Burning rate cms at 690 Ncm2 (ins at 1000 psia)

gt_089 (035)

053 (021)

097 (0 38 )b

079 (031)

081 (032)

074 (029)

Pressure exponent n lt042 028 048 031 037 031

Hazard

classification 2 2 2 2 2 7 (marginal)

aTest data from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings at PC 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

bData point based on 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

SECTION III

PHASE I PROGRAM

A OBJECTIVE

The program objective of the Phase I program the results of which are documented in this report was to develop an alternate propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster motors which would eliminate or minimize the H1 in the exhaust from the motors

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS

The Phase I development effort was conducted within some very specific constraints These program constraints were

(1) Minimize the design impact on the present solid booster

(2) Eliminate or minimize Llt 3) the HC1 release from the booster motors during operation above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude

(3) Any candidate alternate propellant must confori to a Class 2 hazards classification

(4) The program was to be conducted within government as a contingency

(5) The payload schedule and cost impact of the Phase I effort on the Shuttle project were to be assessed concurrently

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS

Three basic pandidate propellant systems were selected for consideration in this development program These propellant systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

In addition to the above three completely new propellant systems a modification of the current baseline PBAN propellant was to be made This modification consisted of adjusting the burning rate of the PBAN propellant to a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) [The baseline PBAN propellant burning rate was approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)]

3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA

As has been stated the criteria for the Phase I program effort was established as a result of the Phase 0 feasibility study The scope of effort and propellant performance goals thus established were as follows

(1) Initiate the development of three basic candidate alternate propellant systems

(2) Modify the current Shuttle baseline PHAN propellant to meet

the new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins)

(3) The propellant performance goals were

(a) Burning rate = 689 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(b) Pressure exponent lt 042

(c) Delivered vacuum specific impulse at an expansion ratio of 716 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(d) Theburning rates of the candidate alternate propellants and the Shuttle baseline PBAN propellant should be matched at a pressure of 400 Ncm 2 (580 psia)

(e) HCI in the exhaust _ 3

(4) The development program was to include in addition to - the above

(a) Processing studies

(b) Physical property studies

(c) ropellant aging studies

(d) Propellant hazards classification testing

(e) Propellant performance testing

(f) Investigation of the compatibility between the alternate propellant and the current baseline PBAN propellant and between the alternate propellant and the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) insulation

E PROGRAM APPROACH

The following outline details the general approach taken in the investigation of the various aspects of this program

3-2

1 Theoretical Studies

() Maximize delivered specific impulse at 88 solids

(a) Aluminum content

(b) HMX content

(c) High-energy plasticizer content (TMETN)

2 Burning Rate Studies 089 cms (035 ins) Goal

(1) Particle size blend of oxidizer

(2) Investigate and compare catalyst type and concentration

(a) Fe203

(b) Ferrocene

(c) Milori blue

(d) CU-0202 P shy

(e) Inert plasticizer level (DOA)

(f) High-energy plasticizer (TMETN)

(g) HMX

(h) Zirconium powder

(i) Other

Burning rates to be determined via Crawford Bomb strand burning and 5 x 6 motor tests

3 Physical Property Studies

(1) Binder stoichiometry

(2) Plasticizer level and type

(a) Free plasticizer

(b) Internal plasticizer (chemically bonded)

(3) Degree of crosslinking

(4) Cure time and temperature

3-3

Evaluate properties Tensile strength

Elongation

Modulus

Hardness

Density

4 Processing Studies

(1) Process variables

(a) Mixer speeds

(b) Mix duration

(c) Ingredient addition sequence

(d) Other

5 Compatibility Studies

(1) PBAN propellant to alternate propellant bond

(a) As cured surfaces

(b) Machined surfaces

(2) Alternate propellant to insulation bond

6 Safety Hazard Tests

(I) Card gap

(2) Impact

(3) Auto-ignition shy

(4) Blast~ng cap

(5) Friction sensitivity

(6) Spark sensitivity

3-4

7 Aging Studies

(1) Propellant aging-physical properties

(a) Ambient temperature

(2) Propellant-propellant bond

(a) Ambient temperature

8 Motor Testing

(1) 5 x 6 motors - pressure only

(2) BATES motors - pressure and thrust

9 Shuttle Baseiine Propellant Modification

Adjust burning rate to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

F NOS PARTICIPATION

The Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head Maryland wLs funded by JPL to participate in certain aspects of the Alternate Propellant Program This funding of the NOS was a relatively low level of funding and designed to support the program through the investigation of certain very specific tasks The general areas of the NOS participation were

(1) Investigation of the solubility of the high-energy plasticizer TMETN in (a) R-45 HTPB polymer and (b) R-45 HTPB polymerDOA plasticizer

(2) Determine the limits of TMETN for a Class 2 propellant in an (a) all AN propellant system (b) ANAP system and (c) ANAPHMX system

(3) Investigation of the limits of HMX Ior a Class 2 inert binder propellent

(4) Hazards testing of candidate propellant formulations

(5) Investigation of HMX and AP particle size ef~eots and ballistic modifier effects on candidate propellant ballistics

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE

The Phase I effort of the Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program began April 1 1975 as an 18-month program The program schedule was later revised and lengthened to a 30-month program Much later in the program (April 1976) following several revisions to the program

3-5

schedule the planned scope of effort was reduced and the schedule cut to

conclude the program on June 30 1976 This reduction in scope and schedule

time became necessary due to a cut in the anticipated program funds

H DISCUSSION

Theoretical Studies

As has been discussed in the introduction to this report the Phase 0 feasibility study (Ref 1) results established the basis for

the Phase I effort Theoretical studies had been conducted during the Phase 0 work analyzing the effects of solids loading oxidizer ratios

binder composition etc on the thermoballistic properties of the proshy

pellant types under consideration Therefore at the start of the Phase I

program effort the guidelines for formulating the candidate alternate propellants to be developed were fairly well defined Consequently the

theoretical studies reported here involved only formulations with certain

constant parameters such as 88 total solids 15 aluminum and a binder based on plasticized HTPB

Table 3-1 gives summary tabulations of the primary thermoballistic properties of a number of candidate formulations containing AN AP and

HMX as oxidizers and the binder plasticized with the high-energy plasticizer

TMETN Iron oxide at the 1 level was included as a burning rate modifier The relevant Shuttle SRM baseline PBAN propellant properties are also shown in the table for reference As can be seen the formulation containing 25 HMX 10 AP and 25 TMETN plasticizer in the binder (12 HTPB binder) matches within 49 N-skg (05-s) specific impulse to that of the Shuttle baseline propellant That formulation however would be a Class 7 proshy

pellant and therefore could not be considered as a candidate

Table 3A2 shows the effects of varying the AP content the HMX conshy

tent and the type and content of the burning rate modifiers A combination

of ammonium dichromate (AD) and copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was selected

as the primary burning rate modifiers for this work Approximately two seconds of impulse difference is calculated for equal amounts of Fe203 and mixed AD and CU-0202 P (4 Fe203 versus 2 AD and 2 CU-0202 P) The calculations also show that for the 88 total solids system with 15 aluminum and 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) tpe theoretical optimum amount of HMX for maximum impulse is in the range of 17 to 175 The

experimental optimum HMX level for maximum delivered IsD however

appears to be something less than 17 wt This is eviaenced by the results from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests of propellants containing 150 170 and 175 HMX The measured ballistics of these formulations

are tabulated in Table 2-3 in the summary section of this report As will be seen in Table 2-3 the highest measured Isp with an HMX formulation

was with FormulationNumber ANH-12 which contains 150 HMX

These theoretical calculations referred to above were made using

a JPL computer program based on the minimization of free energy to

calculate both the equilibrium and frozen flow thermoballistic properties

of chemical compositions

3-6

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN

Formulationa Ballistics

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

AN AP HIX Al

TMETN in

Binder Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P T0 K C

ms (fts)

T (Sea Lcve Optimum) N-skg (s)

Vac 1 (c = 7)

N-skg (a)

Shuttle PBAN Baseline Propellantb(Density 17714 gcm 3 00640 lbin3) 3515 1578 (5176) 25752 (2626) 27136 k2767)

62 10 0 15 0 1 2825 1503 (4931) 24536 (2502) 25966 (2648)

62 10 0 15 10 1 2902 1511 (4956) 24674 (2516) 26095 (2661)

62 10 0 15 20 1 2977 1518 (4980) 24791 (2528) 26213 (2673)

62 10 0 15 25 1 2982 1521 (4991) 24850 (2534) 26272 (2679)

62 0 10 15 20 1 2910 1526 (5005) 24870 (2536) 26321 (2684)

52 0 20 15 20 1 2973 1546 (5072) 25174 (2567) 26645 (2717)

47 0 25 15 20 1 3005 1557 (5108) 25321 (2582) 26900 (2743)

62 0 10 15 25 1 2916 1529 (5016) 24929 (2542) 26380 (2690)

52 0 20 15 25 1 2978 1550 (5084) 25233 (257 ) 26704 (2723)

47 0 25 15 25 1 3010 1561 (5120) 25380 (2588) 26860 (2739)

52 10 10 15 10 1 2964 1532 (5028) 24968 (2546) 26419 (2694)

42 10 20 15 10 1 3027 1554 (5100) 25272 (2577) 26753 (2728)

37 10 25 15 10 1 3658 1565 (5136) 25419 (2592) 26909 (2744)

52 10 10 15 20 1 3039 1540 (5052) 25095 (2559) 26519 (2706)

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN (Continuation 1)

Formulationa Ballistics -

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier TMETN Is (Sea Vac L

in C Level Optimum) (E = 7 AN AP HMX Al Binder Fe203 AD CU-0202 P Tc K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

42 10 20 15 20 1 3102 1562 (5124) 25399 (2590) 26870 (2740)

37 10 25 15 20 1 3134 1573 (5160) 25546 (2605) 27037 (2757)

52 10 10 15 25 1 3044 1543 (5063) 25154 (2565) 26596 (2712)

42 10 20 15 25 1 3107 1565 (5135) 25448 (2595) 26929 (2746)

37 10 25 15 25 1 3138 1576 (5171) 25595 (2610) 27086 (2762)

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

bThe Shuttle baseline propellant has 16 Al 86$ total solids

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN

Formulation ballistics

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids)

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Pc = 690 Ncm

2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Moaifier

DensitygcM3

(lbin3 ) AN AP HMX Al

PropellantFormulation

No Fe2 0q AD CU-0202 P To K

C

Ms (fts)

Is (SeaLevel Optimum)

N-skg (s)

Vac ISp(E 7)

N-skg (s)

16634 (00601) 62 10 - 15 1 2728 1500 (4920) 24468 (2495) 25950 (2647)

0 16717 (00604) 61 10 - 15 2 2716 1490 (4887) 24320 (2480) 25801 (2631)

16800 (00607) 56 15 - 15 2 2778 1497 (4913) 24438 (2492) 25929 (2644)

16911 (00611) 51 20 - 15 2 2839 1505 (4938) -24566 (2505) 26046 (2656)

16994 (00614) 46 25 - 15 2 2904 1512 (4962) 24674 (2516) 26164 (2668)

17105 (00618) 41 30 - 15 2 2969 1519 (4985) 24791 (252b) 26282 (2680)

17188 (00621) 36 35 - 15 2 3032 1526 (5007) 24899 (2539) 24390 (2691)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 4 2692 1469 (4820) 24016 (2449) 25478 (2598)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 (AN-25) - 2 2 2695 1481 (4860) 24203 (2468) 25684 (2619)

16745 (0n605) 51 20 - 15 - 2 2841 1513 (4965) 24693 (2518) 26194 (26741)

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 1)

Pl1si~sFormulitiona

Theoreticl Equilibrium Flow Calculations = Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant IS (Sea Vac I gcm3 Formulation C Love Optimum) (c = 7) (lbin 3 ) AN PP HmX Pi No Fe20q AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg ()

16911 (00611) 51 20 15 (AN-71) 2 2845 1508 (4949) 24624 (2511) 26115 (266-)

16828 (00608) 51 20 15 1 1 2841 1511 (4957) 24654 (2514) 26145 (2666)

17160 (00620) 44 10 15 15 4 2748 1492 (4895) 24320 (2480) 25811 (2632)

17216 (00622) 42 10 17 15 4 2756 1495 (4906) 24360 (2484) 25850 (263b)

- ) 415 10 175 15 4 2581 1500 (4921) 25850 (2636)

) 40 10 190 15 4 2794 1495 (4906) 257b2 (2629)

39 10 200 15 4 2776 1490 (4888) 25723 (2623)

17049 (00616) 44 10 15 15 (ANH-12) - 2 2 2748 1504 (4937) 24507 (2499) 2007 (2652)

17077 (00617) 42 10 17 15 2 2 2754 1508 (4947) 24546 (2503) 26056 (2657)

17049 (00616) 4 10 17 15 (ANH-33) 1 2 2765 1513 (4965) 24634 (2512) 26145 (2666)

L

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 2)

BallisticsFormulations

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant is (Sea Vac Is gcm3 Formulation C Level Optimum) M (ibin3 ) AN AP HMX Al No Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

16828 (00608) 44 10 17 15 - - 2779 1525 (5005) 24781 (2527) 26311 (2683)

16994 (00614) 44 10 17 15 - 2 2784 1518 (4981) 24723 (2521) 26243 (2676)

16911 (00611) 44 10 17 15 - 1 1 2778 1522 (4994) 24752 (2524) 26272 (2679)

17077 1509 (4950) 24556 (2504) 26066 (2658)(00617) 415 10 175 15 (ANH-18) - 2 2 2757

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

2 Exhaust Products

The exhaust compositions of the five candidate propellants listed in Table 2-I in the report summary and that of the Shuttle PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 3-3 The exhaust species are shown as weight percent of the total exhaust and the exhaust composition is that at the exit plane of the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 716 calculated as the equilibrium composition

3 Combustion and Burning Rate

Two problems which were anticipated and confirmed as problems early in the Phase 0 program were low combustion efficiency and low burning rates of the aluminized ammonium nitrate propellant These subjects are discussed individually in the sections covering the different propellant systems However a few brief general comments will be made here

It was demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by way of 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings that a few percent of AP was essential in the ammonium nitrate propellants in order to effect satisfactory combustion of aluminum An 88 solids 15 Al ammonium nitrate formulation containing no AP was test fired in several 227-kg (5-1b) test motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors In each case large amounts of aluminum slag remained in the motors after firing Molten aluminum could be seen being ejected through the nozzle during the test firings Greatly improved combustion resulted from incorporating 5 AP in the formulation The incorporation of 10 AP resulted in virtually zero slag remaining in the motor Therefore 10 AP was selected as a standard for this Alternate Propellant Program The three photographs of BATES motor tests (Figs 3-1 to 3-3 containing 0 5 and 10 AP respectively in the formulations) show rather dramatically the effect of AP on the combustion The glowing streams in the 0 and 5 AP firings (greatly reduced in the 5 AP test however) are produced by molten aluminum

A second technique investigated as a combustion improvement techshynique was the incorporation of zirconium metal powder into the propellant The basis for this idea was due to the fact that zirconium powder has a much lower ignition temperature than that of aluminum powder and has a relatively high heat of combustion The idea was to take advantage of this lower ignition temperature of zirconium powder to facilitate the ignition and burning of the aluminum by igniting and burning and thereby supplying sufficient added heat to the system to more effectively ignite and burn the aluminum This technique however did not demonstrate any real improvement in the measured performance but rather a decrease and was therefore not investigated beyond the initial BATES motor test firings

3-12

Table 3-3 Propellant Exhaust Comsition

Propellant PBAN AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Solids 86 88 88 88 88 88 AP 6960 10 20 10 10 10 HMX - - - 15 17 175

Tel K 2327 1563 1678 1570 1575 1571

MoI Wt of Products 2756 2309 2360 2285 2275 2281

Speciesa wt

AlCl 00094 - - - -AIC10 00086 - - - shy

-A1C12 00098 - - -

AICI3 00053 - - - shy-AlHO2 00012 - - -

Cl 02961 - 00007 - -

CO 232928 189953 191619 256367 264700 267944 39486 61302 58679 46105 44899 42773CO2

Cr203(L) - 10020 02090 10020 06050 10020 Cu - 00038 00184 00044 00044 00044 CuC(L) - 14543 11840 14513 14475 14513 CUM - 00891 04188 00901 00940 00901

-Fe 00134 - - -

FeC12 05998 00621 00621 00596 00583 00583 H 00191 00001 00002 00001 00001 00001 H2 18804 29663 27301 32744 32941 33221

aCl 209284 30346 60149 30357 30346 30357 HO 00321 - 00002 - -

H20 101499 154534 157204 95971 91721 86539 85862 221739 203436 225998 228954 226707N2

NH3 - 00905 00003 00005 00005 00005 NO 00018 05780 - - shy

0 00005 shy02 00003 - - shy

A1203(C) 302097 283418 283418 283418 283418 283418

aConcentrations less than 1 x I0-5 moles100 g exhaust are omitted

L = liquid C = crystalline

3-13

ft

iI

Figure 3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

Imm

Figure 3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5$ AP in ANAPA1HTPB

go

Figure 3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

A third technique investigated was that of using a chromate-coated aluminum powder in place of the standard aluminum powder This techniquealso failed to produce increased combustion efficiency of the aluminum in the propellant

Specific burning rate subjects are discussed in the discussions of the different propellant systems however some general comments will be made here As can be seen in Table 3-2 the proper selection of a burning rate catalyst must be based on more than burning-rate considerations when a rigorous effort is made to maximize specific impulse As can be seen a significant difference is calculated for the theoretical Isp between incorporating the different burning rate modifiers at the same concentration Also the modifier used can have a strong effect on the physical properties of the propellant

4 Physical Properties

This effect of specific ingredients on the physical properties of an ammonium nitrate system arises from the fact that chemical reactions other than the normal curing reactions between the prepolymer and the curing agent enter into the overall curing reactions In most compositepropellant systems the physical properties are determined largely -in addition to binder type and solids loading by the degree of crosslinkingand completeness of reactions with available cure site6 In the ammonium nitrate system however it appears that free protons produced in the system react with the double bond in the prepolymer (HTPH) backbone causing crosslinks at these sites Ammonium dichromate appears to contribute in a greater way to this crosslinking at the double bonds than some of the other burning-rate modifiers investigated On the other hand the AD subtracts less from the calculated Isp The formulating and development of an AN system therefore is complicated by these considerations The physical property problems are greatly complicated Nonconventional techniques must be found and employed in the physical property considerations in order to develop satisfactory control of adequate physical properties

5 High-Energy Plasticizer Studies

One of the approaches investigated on the program was use of high-energy plasticizers td achieve higher delivered specific impulse propellants A review of available nitrate ester plasticizers indicated that TMETN (111-trimethylolethane trinitrate) was the most promising candidate This selection was made on the basis of overall considerations of compatibility performance cost and availability Theoretical performance calculations on some typical propellant formulations with 20 wt TMETN are shown in Table 3-4

Propellant development work on this effort was done by NOS (NavalOrdnance Station Indian Head Md) Two basic formulations were inshyvestigated one with no ammonium perchlorate and one with 5 wt ammonium perchlorate A polyester (R-18) binder was selected and initial development work was done at the 82 wt solids level with 1200 wt TMETN Small

3-17

Table 3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations

Formulation 1-A

Ammonium nitrate 360 Aluminum 180 R-18 60 HMX 100 TMETN 200 Ammonium perchlorate 100

1000

Density gcm3 17300 (lbin3 ) (00625)

Flame temperature 34314 K (OF) (5723)

Vacuum specific 27115 impulse N-skg (s) (2765) E = 716

Pc 483 Ncm2

(700 psi)

Weight percent 278 HC1 in exhaust

1-B

310 180 60 100 200 150

1000

17411 (00629)

3481 (5806)

27155 (2769)

417

1-C 1-D

410 410 180 180 60 60 50 -

200 200 100 150

1000 1000

17217 17244 (00622) (00623)

3410 3430 (5678) (5714)

26988 26880 (2752) (2741)

278 416

3-18

mixes were made to check ingredient compatibility and propellant laboratorysafety properties Results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-5 along with the formulations These tests indicated that the ingredients were compatible and safety properties were adequate The two formulations were then scaled up into larger batches and card gap samples were loaded and tested Both formulations were uncastable so that the card gapsamples had to be hand packed The card gap test results are shown in Table 3-5 and suggest both formulations meet the card gap requirementsfor Class 2 propellant (lt 70 cards) However these results may be biased to give lower card gap sensitivity because of voids in the samples

Four additional formulations were then evaluated at the reduced solids level of 74 wt to improve propellant castability The polyester(R-18) binder system was used and TMETN level was held constant at 20 wt The variations made with these four formulations were variations in the levels of HMX AP and AN All the formulations were eastable and card gap samples were prepared and tested on each The details of the formulations and card gap test results are summarized in Table 3-6 General conclusion from this work was that for this propellant systemwith 20 wt TMETN a maximum level of 5 to 10 wt HMX can be used and meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

Work with the polyester (R-18) binder system was terminated and shifted to the HTPB (R-45) binder system when the early experimentalwork indicated that program goals would probably not be achieved with the polyester (R-18) Initial tests by NOS showed the solubility of TMETN (also referred to as MTN) in R-45 at 210 C (700F) was less than 1 wt They then conducted cosolubility studies with other plasticizersComplete details of these studies are shown in Appendix A Summary conclusions from this effort are as follows

(1) R-18 and adiponitrile are not soluble in R-45M

(2) DOA is more effective as a coplasticizer than TP90B and PPG-1225

(3) Maximum theoretical performance gains possible by replaceshyment of DOA with TMETN within solubility limits are about 176 N-skg (18-s) impulse and 0028 gcm 3 (O001 lbin 3 ) density

A decision was made to terminate further work with TMETN at this point in the program Primary reason for the decision was that the small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justifythe potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradation

6 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrates

An evaluation of available ammonium nitrate (AN) types was made to provide a basis for selection of the AN in development of the propellant formulations Ammonium nitrate is the major oxidizer used in all

3-19

Table 3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations with TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids)

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder TMETN Aluminum HMX Ammonium perchlorate Ammonium nitrate

Initial card gap tests

0 Cards 35 Cards 50 Cards

70 Cards

Laboratory safety tests

Impact mm (3 consecutive positive values 5-kg weight)

Sliding friction kg (ib) 24 ms (8 fts)

Electrostatic discharge- J

(5000 V)

NOS SCC-74-69 NOS SCC-74-074

600 600 1200 1200 1800 1800 2000 1000 - 500

4400 4900

10000 10000

-pos

pos pos pos neg neg

150 -125 150 200

gt-435 (gt_960) 435 ( 960) A35 (gt_960)

gt435 (gt960)

2125 125 gt125 L125

3-20

Table 3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids)

Formulation No NOS Mod I NOS Mod II NOS 1C NOS ID

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder -600 600 600 600 TMETN 2000 2000 2000 2000 Aluminum 1800 1800 1800 1800 HMX 2000 2000 -500 Ammonium perchlorate - 500 1000 1500 Ammonium nitrate 3600 3100 4100 4100

10000 10000 IbO00 10000

No 8 Blasting Cap neg neg -

Test

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards -shy pos 40 Cards pos neg

(42 cards) 50 Cards pos pos neg 60 Cards neg 65 Cards pos 70 Cards pos neg neg 75 Cards pos -

80 Cards pos - -

85 Cards - Ipos and I neg - -

90 Cards 2 pos - -

100 Cards pos I pos and I neg - -

112 Cards pos - -

120 Cards pos neg - -

121 Cards 1 pos and 2 neg - -

123 Cards neg - - -

125 Cards neg 150 Cards neg

3-21

three of the basic alternate propellants ANAPAlHTPB ANHMXAlHTBP

and ANHMXAPAlHTPB

Some of the problems associated with making propellants with AN are

(1) Low true density of AN (1725 gcm3 ) which limits solids loading for processable propellants

(2) Large size and hollowness of unground as-received prills

(3) Hygroscopicity of AN and particle agglomeration

(4) Slow burning rates

(5) Low specific impulse

(6) Volumetric changes with crystal phase changes

The following three types of AN were selected for evaluation

(1) Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated

(2) U S Agri-Chemicals industrial with anti-caking agent

(3) Monsanto industrial E-2 phase stabilized

These three were selected because they are generally representative of what is currently available from industry Table 3-7 compares the as-received properties of the three AN types Table 3-8 compares some of the processing characteristics of the three AN types

The Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated has the advantage of having no additives that generally tend to reduce propellant specific impulse However this AN has a soft prill that breaks readily and is very hygroscopic Both the unground and ground materials agglomerate severely even in controlled environments These difficulties in controlling particle-size distribution with this type AN pose real problems in achieving and reproducing maximum specific impulse and burning rate in processable propellants Cost of this type AN is higher than the other two types because it is a specialty product

The U S Agri-Chemicals industrial AN has a 043 to 077 wt coating of anticaking agent on the prills The coating consists of 90 talc and 10 Petro-Ag It keeps the material free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture In addition it makes a harder prill which does not break readily Good control of particle-size distribution is possible with this type of AN Consequently processable propellants are achievable with reproducible burning rates and delivered specific impulse

3-22

Oc Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received PropertiesTable 3-7

Vendor

ltC7

Type

Appearance

Total nitrogen

Approx assay

Moisture (when manufactured)

to Additive

Screen size (US Sieve Series)

Loose bulk density gcm3

3)(lbft

Prill Density gcm3

Approx cost kg (lb)

aphase stabilized

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticakang Agent)

White prills

None

254 (115)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

industrial (Coated with Anticaking Agent)

White free-flowing spheres

(prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

025 wt min

043 to 077 wt $ coating bagent

00 wt max retained on No 6 50 wt $ max through No 6 and on a No 8 940 wt max through No 6 and on No 20 10 wt max through No 20

154

154 (7 0 )d

Monsanto Agricultural Products Co

inoustrial E-2

Pearly white free-flowing

spheres (prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

05 wt min

04 to 06 wt E-2 additive c

10 wt max retained on No 6 100 wt through No 14

09611 (60)

161

a157 (71

b90 tale and 10 petroleum agent eMgo according to US Patent 3030179

taxesdBulk costs - carload quantities typically 54431-kg (60-ton) minimum Does not include freight or

Table 3-8

Property

Handling characteristics to unground

Particle size after tumble drying unground

Grinding characteristics particle size after coarse grinding in Raymond hammer mill with 4000-rpm hammer speed 160-rpm feed speed 032-cm (18-in) screen

Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticaking Agent)

Soft prill breaks easily Very hygroscopic and agglom-

erates severely

104 to 1000 pm

480 pm (avg)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

Industrial (Coated with Anttcaking Agent)

Fairly hard prill does not break readily Remains free

flowing with reasonable pro-tection from moisture

840 to 3360 pm

2200 pm (avg)

140 um (avg)

Monsanto AgraculLural Products Co

Industrial E-2 (Phase-Stabilized)

Very hard and dense prill does not bread readily

Remains free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture

1410 to 3360 pm

2000 pm (avg)

2bO pm (avg)

The Monsanto industrial E-2 phase-stabilized AN has 04-to 06 wt E-2 additive This material is MgO which pbase stabilizes-the ammonium nitrate according to U S Patent 3030179 (assigned to Monsanto Company) Figure 3-4 shows the specific volume of Monsanto E-2 AN and of AN that has not been phase stabilized versus temperature The solid line is for the Monsanto E-2 AN and the dotted line is for the AN that has not been phase stabilized Note that the volumetric changes associated with Phase III have been eliminated in the phase-stabilizedMonsanto E-2 AN Comparing Monsanto E-2 AN with the other types inTable 3-7 and 3-8 the following conclusions can be made

(1) Monsanto E-2 AN has a higher prill density than U S Agri-Chemicals AN (161 gcm3 versus 154 gcm3 )

(2) Because Monsanto E-2 is a very hard anddense prill normal handling and tumble drying does not significantly break prills Particle-size distribution remains in the range of 1410 to 3360 pm with an average size of about 2000 m

(3) Coarse grinds of Monsanto E-2 AN have an average particle size of about 280 pm which is in the size range (200 to 400 pm) for better fit with the other solids

(4) The Monsanto E-2 AN remains free flowing in both the ungroundand ground states with reasonable protection from moisture

(5) Cost of the Monsanto E-2 AN in large bulk quantities is 157 1kg (71 [lb) which is comparable to other AN types which are not phase stabilized

ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant batches have been made with all three of the AN types discussed above In general results were as follows

(1) The propellant made with Monsanto E-2 AN had lower endshyof-mix viscosities and longer casting lives than the proshypellant made with the other two types of AN

(2) Burning rates with the Monsanto E-2 AN were either comparable or slightly faster

Based on these results Monsanto E-2 AN was selected as the preferred AN type for the following reasons

(1) It is easily processed with good particle-size control It remains free flowing in both the unground and ground states with reasonable protection from moisture The prill does not readily break with normal handling or tumble drying

(2) It has typically a 5 higher prill density This lowers propellant volumetric solids loading which improves castability

(3) This AN can be ground to more optimum size distributions for improved solids packing

3-25

065

063 063

1

- BOWDEN

MONSANTO E-2 -

I

PHASE ILr

E

uS 061 IIshy

0 -

CU 059

057

055

-100 -50

Figure 3-4

0 50 100

TEMPERATURE degC

Specific Volume of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature

150 200

3-26

(4) It does not have a talc anticaking coating which appears

to accelerate propellant viscosity buildup

(5) Phase stabilization minimizes volumetric changes with varying

temperature due to phase changes

(6) This AN gives comparable or slightly faster burning rates

(7) It has a comparable price to other AN types in large bulk

quantities

7 ANAPAlHTPB ( 3 Wt HC1 Exhaust)

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished

on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraint of lt 3 wt HCl in the propellant exhaust

This constraint is met by limiting the AP level in the formulation to

( 10 wt

a Burning Rate Studies Initial burning rate studies were

made to evaluate different ballistic modifier types and levels with

the basic 88 wt solids ANAPAlHTPB propellant The selection of

the ballistic modifiers was limited to those that were

(1) Commercially available

(2) Proved successful for use within rubber base propellants

(3) Non-migrating

(4) Reasonably priced

selectedAmmonium dichromate (NH4)2Cr207 at the 2 wt level was

as the primary ballistic modifier for the following reasons

(1) AN is the major oxidizer

(2) AD has been used successfully for years with AN propellants

Other ballistic modifiers were used in conjunction with the AD to enhance

burning rate and attempt to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms

(035 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) Table 3-9 shows the formulations evaluatedand the cured strand burning rates obtained

The propellant formulations were mixed as small (1000 to 1500 g)

batches using a 38-liter (1-gal) vertical Bramley mixer The propellant

was cast into RAM-225 released molds that formed individual propellant

strands and was then cured After cure the propellant strands were tested

in a conventional Crawford Bomb strand burner A subsequent study

discussed in the section on ANUNXAPAlHTPB propellant showed that

3-27

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Formulation wt Crawford Bomb Data

rb cms (ins)

Batch No

Total Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m)

Other Ballistic Modifier

Oxidizer Blend CoarseFine

At 345 Nem2

and 210C (500 psia and 700F)

At 690 Ncm2

and 210C (1000 psia and 700 F)

o

30

31 55

88 6o

59 57

10 15 2

2 2

Fe20Q

Fe203 Fe203

1

2 4

4555

442558 425575

0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0279 (0110)

0538 (0212)

0475 (0187)

0432 (0170)

32

33

49

34

60

59

57

59

2

2

2

2

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite Fe203

1

2

4

1 1

4555

442558

425575

442558

0462 (0182)

0564 (0222)

0472 (0186)

0493 (0194)

0627 (0247)

0759 (0299)

0671 (0264)

0737 (0290)estimated

50 57 2 Copper Chromite Fe203

2 2 425575 0511 (0201) 0699 (0275)

54 57 2 Copper Chromite FeF 3 (unground)

2 2 425575 0485 (0191) 0648 (0255)

35 6o 2 Milor Blue 1 4555 0399 (0157) 0625 (0246)

56 57 2 Milori Blue 4 425575 0371 (0146) 0528 (0208)

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

a Crawford Bomb Data

Formulation wt rb cms (ins)

At 3115 Ncm2 At 690 Ncm2

0 0and 21 C and 21 C

Batch Total Other Ballistic Oxidizer Blend (500 psia (1000 psia 0

No Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m) Modifier CoarseFine and 70 F) and 700 F)

W 36 88 60 10 15 2 Ferrocene 1 4555 0381 (0150) 0569 (0224)N)

42 60 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 1 4555 0429 (0169) 0594 (0234)

53 57 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 4 425575 0356 (0140) 0490 (0193)

41 60 2 Iron phthshyalocyanine 1$ 4555 0358 (0141) 0490 (0193)

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

the strand burning rates may have been biased to give faster rates by the RAM-225 release agent However the burning rate trends and ranking of the ballistic modifiers do not appear to be biased by the RAM-225

Figure 3-5 shows strand burning rates plotted at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) versus the second ballistic modifier level for the ballistic modifier systems evaluated General conclusions from the study were as follows

(1) The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) and 2 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) gave the fastest burn rate

(2) Increasing the combined level of burning rate modifiers to greater than 4wt of theformulatibn decreased the burn rate

Although the attritor-ground (I m) ferric fluoride (FeF 3) gave a faster burning rate than CU-0202 P at the 1 wt second ballistic modifier level FeF 3 was not selected because it would have contributed HF in the propellant exhaust A preliminary selection of the ballistic modifier system was made for subsequent work The system selected was 2 wt $ ground AD and 2 wt as-received CU-0202 P

Achievement of the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2

(035 ins at 1000 psia) had not been accomplished by simple manipulation of the ballistic modifier type and level Consequently propellant developshyment effort was continued toward this goal along the following approaches

(1) Finer particle size ballisticmodifiers

(2) Finer particle size AN

(3) Greater level of fine AN

(4) Finer particle size AP

(5) Use of potassium perchlorate

Two approaches were evaluated to reduce ballistic modifier particle sizes to sizes smaller than those achievable with a hammer mill They were dry ball milling and attritor grinding The dry ball milling approach was unsuccessful with AD and CU-0202 P because they packed into a hard cake Attritor grinding of AP and FeF 3 to particle sizes smaller than 1 m has been successfully demonstrated within the solid propellant industry This method uses an attritor mill to grind material suspended in Freon between zircoa beads Attritor grinds were successfully made with AD and CU-0202 P and the particle-size reductions accomplished are summarized in Table 3-10

3-30

1016 I1

STRAND BURN RATES POSSIBLY BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

040

EU

04 E

z 0762

FIRST BALLISTIC MODIFIER 200 wt GROUND AD

FeF3 GROUND TO I

030

K c

0 10

uIX FeF 3 (UNGROUND)

Z

0 58

IRONO PHTHALOCYANINE

MILORI BLUE

x FERROCENEFe 20 3

020 zS

ln

0254 I I 0 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SECOND BALLISTIC MODIFIER LEVEL wt

Figure 3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic

Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-31

Table 3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P

Screen Analysis Micromerograph Material 50 wt pt 50 wt pt

Particle Size pm Particle Size pm

AD

As received =575

Attritor ground (21 h) - 44

CU-0202 P

As received 21

Attritor ground (21 h) shy 17

Small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of the smaller ballistic modifier particle sizes on strand burning rates Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-11 General conclusions from this study are as follows

(1) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 1 wt FeF 3 fine ground AN and 9-gm AP reducing the FeF 3 particle size from a coarse as-received to attritor-ground 1 pm material increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2

(1000 psia) from 0594 to 0668 cms (0234 to 0263 ins) (-12)

(2) In an IDP-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P coarse ground AN and 63- AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm did not significantly change strand burning rate

(3) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (0208 to 0219 ins) ( 5)

(4) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (2208 to 0218 ins) (5)

3-32

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-l05 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized 40 IDP

plasticized

1200

-

1200

-

-

1200

-

1200

1200

-

1200

-

1200

-

Aluminum MD 105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground

72 pm Attritor ground

44 gm

200

-

200

-

200 -

200bull

200

-

200

-

-

200

Ferric fluoride As received Attritor ground 1 pm

100 -

-100

- -

- -

-

-

Copper chromite As received 21 pm

Attritor ground 17 pm

- 200

-

200

-

200

-

-

200

200

-

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine Ground Gulf

Oil Fine ground

Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

3150 -

2850

-

3150 -

2850

-

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 1000 9 [Lm

FEM ground 63 pm -

1000

-

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000 1000

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-33

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-105 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 690 Ncm 2 0429 0465 0422 0419 0424 0439 0437 (100 psia) (0169)(0183)(0166) (0165) (0167) (0173) (0172)

At 345 Ncm 2 0594 0668 0467 0475 0528 0556 0554 (500 psia) (0234)(0263)(0184) (0187) (0208) (0219) (0218)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 047 053 014 018 030 033 033

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

In summary reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burning rates for the selected ballistic modifier system

As discussed earlier particle-size control of the unground Gulf Oil AN was a problem because of breakage of the prills during drying and handling A partial approach to this problem was to screen the unground Gulf Oil AN into a selected size range after drying and handling Smallshyscale propellant batches (1000 to 1500 g) were made using Gulf Oil AN and strand burn rate tests were performed on these batches to evaluate

(1) The effect of screened +60 to -32 mesh (250 to 570 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(2) The effect of screened +32 to -16mesh (570 to 1190 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(3) The effect of varying the fraction of AN as fine ground on castability and burn rate

The fine ground AN was ground using a hammer mill with the following settings

9600 rpm hammer speed 80 rpm feed speed

0033-cm (0013-in) screen

3-34

Fisher sub-sieve average particle size for this material was typically 20 pm The fraction of AN as fine ground was limited to less than 55wt to keep propellant processable in the small scale batches (Larger batches typically have better castability) Table 3-12 and Fig 3-6 summarize test results General conclusions from these results were

(1) All batches had poor relative castability

(2) Using unscreened unground Gulf Oil AN (broad particle-size distribution with a significant portion of fines) and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 483 to 542 wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) from 0505 to 0577 cms (0199 to 0227 ins)

(3) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0462 cms (0199 to 0182 ins)

(4) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 300 to 483

wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (100 psia) from 0419 to Q462cms (0165 to 0182 ins)

(5) Changing the coarse fraction from screened +60 to -32 AN to screened +32 to -16 mesh AN reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0404 cms (0165 to 0159 in s)

Changing the type of ammonium nitrate type from Gulf Oil to Monsanto phase stabilized AN eliminated the problem of prill breakage but did not improve castability even with IDP plasticizer as shown by Batch SB-101 in Table 3-12 The slower burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponent with Batch SB-101 compared to Batch SB-64 is due to use of IDP as the plasticizer A small-scale propellant batch SB-102 was made with a coarse ground Monsanto AN to evaluate the effect of this material on castability and burn rate The coarse ground was made using a hammer mill with the following setting 4000 rpm hammer speed 160 rpm feed speed and 032-cm (18-in) screen

Screen analysis indicated this coarse ground AN had an average particle size of approximately 280 pm Propellant castability using this material was excellent but strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was reduced from 0485 to 0442 cms (0191 to 0174 ins) 9 The burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) was not achieved by varying AN type AN particle size or fraction of AN fine ground

The effect of replacing hammer mill ground AP by fluid energy mill ground AP on propellant burning rate was evaluated in a series of five small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) batches Three batches were made using DOA plasticizer and fine ground Gulf AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 55 pm Two batches were made using IDP plasticizer and coarse ground Monsanto AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm Results of this study are shown in Table 3-13 and Fig 3-7

3-35

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized40 IDP

plasticized

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 to 72 gm

Copper chromite as received

im21

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Screened (+60-32) Gulf Oil

Screened (+32 to -16 mesh) Gulf Oil

Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil

Fine ground Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground9 gm

Fraction of AN fine ground (wt )

Relative Castability

SB-64

AN-25

1200

-

200

200

1500

3050

-

-

2850

-

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-75

AN-63

1200

-

200

200

1500

2700

-

--

3200

-

1000

542

Poor

SB-48

AN-40

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

4130

--

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-48A

AN-40A

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

-

4130 -

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-61

AN-53

1200

200

200

1500

-

3050

-

2850

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-101 SB-102

AN-65 AN-65A

- -

1200 1200

200 200

200 200

1500 1500

- -

- -

- -3050 3050

- -

2850 -

2850

1000 1000

483 -

Poor Excellent

3-36

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-64 SB-75 SB-48 SB-48A SB-61 SB-101 SB-102

Formulation No AN-25 AN-63 AN-40 AN-40A AN-53 AN-65 AN-65A

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm 2 0366 0414 0277 0284 0338 0419 0351 (500 psia) (0144)(0163)(0109) (0112) (0133) (0165) (0138)

At 690 Ncm2 0505 0577 0419 0404 0462 0485 0442 (1000 psia) (0199)(0227)(0165) (0159) (0182) (0191) (0174)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 047 049 060() 050 045 022 032

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

These results indicated the following

(1) Using DOA plasticizer fine ground Gulf AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 55 gm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0508 to 0635 cms (0200 to 0250 ins)

(2) Using IDP plasticizer coarse ground Monsanto AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0442 to 0467 cms (0174 to 0184 ins)

(3) Use of the finer (55 to 63 pm) fluid energy ground AP did not increase pressure exponent

Maximum burning rate achieved using fluid energy ground AP was 0635 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0250 ins at 1000 psia) compared to the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

3-37

Table 3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-62 SB-64 SB-66 SB-102 SB-103

Formulation No AN-25 AN-25 AN-56 AN-65A- AN-65B

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 wt DOA plasticized 40 wt IDP plasticized

1200 -

1200 -

1200 -

-

1200 1200

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as

received 21 [m 200 200 200 200 200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 -1500

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil Coarse ground Monsanto

3050

-2850 -

3050

-2850

-

3050

-2850

-

3050 -

2850

3050 -

2850

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 9 1m Fluid energy ground 55 pm Fluid energy ground 63 pm

1000 --

1000 -

-

1000 -

1000 -

-

-

1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Ratesa

cms at 251C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)- 0368 (0145)

0366 (0144)

0457 (0180)

0351 (0138)

0422 (o166)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0508 (0200)

0505 (0199)

064 (025)

0442 (0174)

0467 (0184)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 049 049 048 032 014

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-38

0762 I I I 1 030 11nSTRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY -Z o BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

0E E

COARSE FRACTION HADBROAD SIZE DISTRIBUTION a Z o

WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTION OFFINES

oC 10I0 Ishy

lt 0508 020 w

zz Z 0-COARSE FRACTION WAS 04 n SCREENED TO OBTAIN

NARROW COARSE DISTRIBUTION (+60 -32

o Z

I-MESH) WITH NO FINES

-shy

0254 20

I 30

I 40

I 50

I 60

010 70

FRACTION QF FINE GROUND AN wt

Figure 3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (Gulf AN)

3-39

1270 050

E

U

o 0

I-

C

BURN RATE GOAL o

I-

D Co0

0762 FINE

DOA

GROUND AN AND

PLASTICIZER

030

0D 0o z

V) 0508-

COARSE GROUND AN AND IDP PLASTICIZER 020

0381 I I I I I 015 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) jm

Figure 3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size

ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-40

A small-scale propellant batch SB-65 was made to determine whether the burning rate could be increased significantly by replacing the ground AP by ground potassium perchlorate (KP) Strand burn rate tests were made on this batch and compared to the reference Batch SB-64 as shown in Table 3-14 Strand burning rate at690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was increased from 0505 to 0531 cms (0199 to 0209 ins) 5 but pressure exponent increased from 047 to 065 This approach was dropped because of the minimal increase in burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and the significant increase in pressure exponent

b Combustion Problems One of the problems in using ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer in solid propellants is the incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered specific impulse This problem was studied in the Phase 0 effort and partially resolved by modifying the formulations to include 10 wt AP Other approaches considered on this program to improve aluminum combustion and performance were

(1) Use of aluminum and zirconium mixtures Zirconium has

lower ignition temperature than aluminum

(2) Use of dichromate-coated aluminum powder

(3) Use of aluminummagnesium alloys

(4) Use of plasticizers containing more oxidizer to obtain a more favorable oxidizerfuel ratio

Some increases in propellant burning were also considered possible with several of these approaches Because of limited time and fundsonly the first two approaches were evaluated to any extent with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant Results of these studies are covered in the following discussion

A small-scale propellant batch SB-104 was made using the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum to evaluate the effect on strand burning rates Results of these strand burning rate tests are compared to strand burning rates of reference Batch SB-103 in Table 3-15 The replacement of the uncoated MD-05 aluminum by the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0467 to 0424 cms (0184 to 0167 ins) 9 No motors were loaded and tested to evaluate the effects of this dichromate-coated aluminum on delivered specific impulse

3-41

Table 3-14 Evaluation of Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-64 SB-65

Formulation No AN-25 AN-55

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 gim 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 [Lm 1000 -

Potassium perchlorate hammer mill ground 30 gm - 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0366 (0144) 0340 (013

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0505 (0199) 0531 (0209

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 049 065

Six small-scale propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of AlZr mixtures on propellant castability and strand burning rates Three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt Fe203 The other three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P Zirconium powder level was varied at 0 250 and 500 wt of propellant formulation (0 16 and 13 replacement of Al) Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-16 and Fig 3-8 General conclusions were as follows

3-42

Table 3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-103 SB-104

Formulation No AN-65B AN-65C

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 (uncoated) 1500 -

Aluminum H-5 (dichromate coated) - 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250C

(ins at 771F)

At 345 Ncm 2 (500 psia) 0422 (0166) 0366 (0144)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0467 (0184) 0424 (0167)

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 014 022

3-43

1016 1 1 1 1 040

-rl STRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY E BIASED BY RAM-225 (3 MOLD RELEASE

E

0762 030 0

CD 00 0 0 I---shy

100 CU-0202 P + 200 AD

z 0508 - 020 D

z z

- 100 Fe20 3 + 200 AD

0254 I I I -010 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ZIRCONIUM (REPLACING ALUMINUM) wt

Figure 3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium

ANAPA1HTPB Propellants

3-44

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Ingredients wt

iHTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1250 1000 1500 1250 1000

Zirconium powder --- 250 500 250 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 [m 200 200 200 200 200 200

Fe203 as received 100 100 100

Copper chromite as received --- - --- 100 100 100

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 gm 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)e

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0272 (0107)

0462 (0182)

0376 (0148)

0307 (0121)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0538 (0212)

0452 (0178)

0399 (0157)

0627 (0247)

0546 (0215)

0455 (0179)

3-45

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 390 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 052 058 058 044 054 057

apoor relative castability bUncastable

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

(1) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to make the propellant less castable on the 38-liter (1-gal) batch scale

(2) The 200 wt AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P ballistic modifier system gave faster burning rates than the 200 wt AD and 100 wt Fe203 ballistic modifier system

(3) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to reduce propellant strand burning rate and increase strand pressure exponent

Based on this study and the study of ballistic modifiers a formulation using 500 wt zirconium was selected for s6ale-up and evaluation in BATES motor firings Results of these additional tests are discussed in Section III-H-d and III-H-e

c Proc6ssing Studies Limited funds and time did not allow for any systematic study of processing variables to optimize processing conditions However processing methods and conditions were optimizedbased on experience Some of the specific approaches used for propellant mixing were

(1) Careful selections of order and manner of ingredient addition to disperse and wet solids

(2) Elevated temperatures prior to curative addition to wet and disperse solids and reduced temperatures after curative addition to minimize cure reactions

3-46

(3) Extended vacuum mix times prior to curative addition to

wet and disperse fine- solids

(4) Controlled moisture of ingredients and of the process

The effects of AN particle sizes and fraction of AN fine ground on propellant castability were discussed in conjunction with the burning rate studies

Antioxidants are commonly used with the R-45 HTPB binder to improve propellant pot life and aging stability The combination of UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-p-phenylene diamine) and DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone) appears to give synergistic effects and is very effective in extending pot life Protech 2002 (UTC proprietary metalshydeactivating antioxidant) and others of the Protech series have the additional advantage of being metal scavengers They tie up the transishytion metals that catalyze radical oxidations Four small-scale propellant batches were made initially to evaluate these pot-life extenders Table 3-17 summarizes results of this initial study The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH gave some improvement in propellant castability with no significant effect on propellant burning rate No improvement in propellant castability was observed with use of the Protech 2002 The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH was selected as the pot-life extender system to be used for additional evaluation

DOA was chosen initially as the plasticizer for use with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant It is one of the most commonly used plasticizers and its low cost is an advantage IDP has a lower viscosity and freezing point than DOA but is more costly than DOA Six smallshyscale propellant batches were made and tested to compare the two plasticizers DOA and IDP under the following three conditions

(1) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level without pot-life extenders

(2) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

(3) At the 50 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

Results of the study are summarized in Table 3-18 General conclusions from the study were

(1) The IDP consistently gave better castability than the DOA

(2) Use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH improved castability with both of the plasticizers DOA and IDP

(3) No major improvement in castability was observed by increasing the plasticizer in binder level from 40 to 50 wt

3-47

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1192 1177 1185

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl-hydroquinone) - 00 004 -

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshyphenylene diamine) -

Protech 2002 (UTC

proprietary antioxidant) -

004

-

004

015

-

015

Aluminum MD-105 1000 1000 1000 1000

Zirconium powder 500 500 500 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63ttxz 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm 1000 1000 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-48

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at

0770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 0323 0295 0282 0269 (500 psia) (0127) (0116) (0111) (0106)

At 690 Ncm 2 0475 0467 0483 0460 (1000 psia) (0187) (0184) (0190) (0181)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 057 066 078 078

aUncastable bpoor castability

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

The effect of plasticizer type on propellant burning rate was not conshyclusively determined from this study Two out of the three cases indicated that the IDP gave slower strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) To resolve this question two additional propellant batches SB-100 and SB-101 were made where the strand burn rate test results could not possibly be biased by the RAM-225 release agent The batches were formulated to have 40 wt plasticizer in binder and to use the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH Results of tests on these two batches are shown in Table 3-19 These results indicated the change from DOA to IDP plasticizer reduced the strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0544 to 0485 cms (0214 to 0191 ins) ( 11)

Based on results of these processing studies the following propellant selections were made for additional evaluation in scale-up batches and motor tests

(1) DOA plasticizer

(2) 40 wt plasticizer in binder level

(3) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH each at the 004 wt level

3-49

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

Formulation No AN-57a AN-58b AN-25 0 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 592 592 720 720 712 712

DTBH (25 dishytertiary butyl hydroquinone) 004 004 - - 004 004

UOP-36 (N-phenylshyN-cyclohexylshyP-phenylene diamine) 004 004 - - 004 004

DOA 600 - 480 - 480 -

IDP - 600 - 480- - 480

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 Am 200 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 [Lm 200 200 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate screened ungroundGulf Oil +60 -32 mesh 2700 2700 - - - -

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil - - 3050 3050 2700 2700

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 3200 3200 2850 2850 3200 3200

Ammonium perchloshyrate hammer mill ground 9 jim - - 1000 1000 1000 1000

3-50

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ammonium perabloshyrate fluid energy mill ground 55 pm

Total

Strand Burning Ratesd cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2 (500 to 1000 psia)

aGood castability

SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

AN-57a AN-58b AN-250 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

1000 1000 -

10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

0376 0371 0366 0478 0414 0353 (0148) (0146) (0144) (0188) (0163) (0139)

0572 0533 0505 0658 0577 0500 (0225) (0210) (0199) (0259) (0227) (0197)

059 053 047 046 049 048

bExcellent castability 0Poor castability dpossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-51

Table 3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-100

-AN-25a

SB-101

AN-65b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 712 712

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshy

P-phenylene diamine)

004

04

004

004

DOA 48o -

IDP - 480

Aluminum IAD-I05 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 72 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm

Total 1000

10000 1000

10000

Strand burning rates cms at 25degC (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

0406 (0160)

0544 (0214)

0419 (0165)

0485 (0191)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

041 022

apoor castability bFair castability

3-52

Results of these additional tests are discussed in sections on scale-up and ballistic evaluation

d Scale-up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Two propellant formulations were selected for evaluation in scale-up batches [946 liters 104 to 113 kg (25gal 230 to 250 lb)] and motor tests Formulation AN-25 was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum and 4 wt ballistic modifier Formulation AN-59 was identical except one-third of the aluminum (5 wt of the propellant formulation) was replaced by zirconium powder Details of the formulations are shownin Table 3-20 Both formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section e The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples from each batch

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rate

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-20 General conclusions from these tests were as follows

(1) The end-of-mix viscosities and pot lives on both batches were excellent There was no degradation of castability with zirconium as suggested by the small-scale batch studies

(2) Strand burning rates were slightly faster at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) for the formulation with zirconium The smallshyscale studies had suggested slower burning rates for formulashytions containing zirconium

(3) Both formulations had burning rateswhich were well below the burning rate goal 0478 and 0513 cms at 690 Ncm2

(0188 and 0202 ins at 1000 psia) versus goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(4) Card gap tests on both formulations were negative at 0 cards and therefore met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Density of the propellant containing zirconium was slightly higher than the propellant containing just aluminum as expected

3-53

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

Propellant Type Batch Number Formulation Number Batch Size kg (ib)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized)

UOP-36

DTBH

Ammonium dichromate grodnd 63 pm

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Aluminum powder

Zirconium powder

Ammonium nitrate Gulf Oil unground Gulf Oil fine ground

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 pm

Total

Brookfield apparent viscosities kP at 0C (OF)

Time after curative addition

07 h (end-of-mix) 13 h 34 h

Strand burning rates at 251C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) At 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

ANAPAlHTPB SB-73 AN-25

113 (250)

1192

004

004

200

200

1500

-

3050 2850

1000

10000

60 at 55 (130) 73 at 57 (135) 95 at 55 (130)

0257 (0101) 0373 (0147) 0462 (0182) 0478 (0188)

3-54

ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74 AN-59

104 (230)

1192

004

004

200

200

1000

500

3050 2850

1000

10000

41 at-57 (-135) 50 at-57 (-135)

0224 (0088) 0353 (0139) 0437 (0172) 0513 (0292)

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations (Continuation 1)

Propellant Type ANAPAlHTPB ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74Batch Number SB-73

Formulation Number AN-25 AN-59 Batch Size kg (ib) 113 (250) 104 (230)

Card Gap Tests 10 negative 10 negative at 0 cards at 0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) 16497 16630 gcm3 (lbin 3 ) (00596) (00601)

JANNAF Uniaxial properties Sm Ncm 2 (psi) 90 (130) 88 (127) era 47 48

Sb Ncm2

eb (psi) 90 (130)

47 88 (127)

48

(6) JANNAF uniaxial properties for both batches were comparable

Maximum stress Sm was in the range of 88 to 90 Ncm2

(127 to 130 psi) and strain at maximum stress em was in

the range of 47 to 48 The low strain values are adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

e Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlHTPB System (3 HCl in

Exhaust) The five candidate alternate propellants listed and defined

in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were all scaled up to processing of 113-kg (250-1b)

batches loaded into BATES motors and test fired The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions using nozzles manufactured

and cut to actual expansion ratios of 716 Both chamber pressure and thrust were measured The tests were conducted at ambient temperature

conditions with propellant charges conditioned to 250C (770F) The

measured sea level Isp swas corrected to a vacuum Isp by simply adding the

back-pressure correction The following equations define the pertinent ballistic parameters

PC _f tEWAT Pc Edttb

J t at 075 Pc init

3-55

-- t EWA T F = dt tF=ftat 075 PC initFtt

Ab gPc KN= - = -

At crp

-- f ta C g At PdtWp g PcKN rp

It Isp ms = shywip

fta itr Fdt

to

PaAeIsp vac ms =Isp MS + -

Wp expended

(ta + tb)2

Figure 3-9 shows the burning rate of the formulation number AN-25 the ANAPAlHTPB propellant system with 10 AP Table 3-21 is a tabulashytion of theBATES motor test data from the test firings of batch number SB-74 of formulation AN-25

f Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlZrHTPB BATES motors were also loaded and tested with the modified ANAPAlHTPB formulation

containing 5 Zr powder a 15-pm powder The burning rates determined in BATES motors are shown in Fig 3-10 and the ballistic data from the BATES motors tests are tabulated in Table 3-22

3-56

PRESSURE psic 4

102 8 103 2 4 6 102 4 6 1524 i 1 1 1 6

A BATES MOTOR DATA 1016 4

n 0278

E --U 0508 -

2

KN shy

(D 0254 - 1000 1o0 1

z 0203- 800- 88

z

0152 - 600 6

0102 - -400 4

0051 I 200 2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73

3-57

2540 2032

1524

102

-

2 4

PRESSURE

6 103

I

psa

2 4 6 104 10

BATES MOTOR DATA 6

1016 n 0277 4

0508 2

O

S0254-0229 0152 -

KN

1000 800600600

I0-866

z

a

6102 - 400 4

0051 I I I 1 200 1 2

69

Fig 3-10

138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74

3-58

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test data

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

W loaded kg (lb)

Wp expended kg (lb)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-sem2 (lb-s)

E-1453 E-1455

9-15-75 9-23-75

SB-732 SB-733

3376 3109 (1329) (1224)

3393 3119 (1336) (1228)

25225 2525 p(55611) (5567) 25028 2501

(55177) (5513)

9922 9904

3840 3855 (1512) (15178)

811 742

881 797

425 576 (616) (835)

493 634 (715) (919)

459 590 (666) (856)

38844 45878 (56339) (66541)

3-59

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 PropellantTable 3-21 (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s)

p (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia)

r at PC cms

(ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s

(Ib-s)

F (JF dttb)6 N (lb)

It (f F dt) (ta)

N-s (lbrs)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

In vac ins N-skg M

E-1455E-1453

4723240196 (68504)(58300)

61834790 (8968)(69147)

05180483 (0190) (02o4)

534445332

528544739

1432 1424 (4700) (4673)

948953

5174650665 (11633)(11390)

6973461910 (15677)(13918)

53745852257 (120826)(11748)

212844207165 (21704)(21125)

88828820

228132226534 (2310) (23263)

3-60

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids Aluminum Oxidizer

88 15 AP-1O AN-59 HMX 0

Run No E-1453 E-1455

Expansion ratio 688 700

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test date

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

Wp loaded kg (ib)

Wp expended kg (ib)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

-E-1454 E-1456

9-18-75 9-26-75

SB-741 SB-742

3287 3119 (1294) (1228)

3307 3142 (1302) (1237)

2561 2561 (5647) (5646)2534 2528

(5586) (5574)

9891 9872

3835 38298 (1510) (15078)

3-61

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-IO AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s)

fP dt (ta) N-scm (lb-s)

Pc (f P dttb)

Ncm2 (psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

E-1454 E-1456

769 740

824 784

465 552 (675) (800)

541 620 (785) (899)

540 614 1 (783) (890)

40311 4482C (58467) (6500

41806 46000 (60634) (66718)

5242 6057 (7603) (8785)

0498 0518 (0196) (0204)

478 531

4726 523

13940 14319 (45736) (46977)

928 9527

3-62

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb)N (lb)

it (fF dt) (ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s-)

Isp efficiency

lsi vac ms N-skg(s22055

Expansion ratio

E-1454 E-1456

50189 50576 (11283) (11370)

6526 6835 (1467) (15365)

52044 52044 (11700) (11770)

20319 20447 (2072) (2085)

8598 865

22016

(2249) (2245)

696 694

3-63

8 ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (gt3 Wt HCl in Exhaust)

The propellant development work accomplished on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to this point indicated that the burn rate goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with the constraint of lt3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was probably not achievable Development work was continued on this propellant with the HC1 constraint removed but held to a minimum This section discusses that propellant development effort

a Burning Rate Studies Four small-scale batches (1500 g) were made varying the FEM AP (fluid energy mill-ground ammonium perchlorate) level from 10 to 30 wt The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground AD and 2 wt CU-0202 P was used End-of-mix viscosities pot life and cured strand burning rates were measured on each batch Objective of this work was to determine what FEM AP level was needed

to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) The formulations and test results are shown in Table 3-23and Fig 3-11 These results lead to the following conclusions

(1) The strand burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) is achievable using 18 wt FEM AP A motor burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) may require a slightly higher FEM AP level

(2) End-of-mix viscosities werein the range of 88 to152 kP at 520C (125 0 F) for FEM AP levels ranging from 10 to 20 wt Casting lives for these batches were 2_35 h at

520C (125 0F)

(3) Using FEM AP and increasing the AP level from 10wt to 18-wt increases HCI in the exhaust from 29 to =50

Thermoballistic calculations indicated that reducing the ballistic modifier level to 2 wt by elimination of the AD increased theoretical Isp by 196 N-skg (2 s) Elimination of the AD was desirable from other considerations Studies had shown that it crosslinks the R-45 prepolymer (probably through the double bond) and degrades propellant castability and physical properties Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made varying the FEM AP level over the range of 15 to 25 wt level Only 2 wt as received CU-0202 P was used as ballistic modifier End-of-mix viscosities and-cured strand burning rates were measured

Results of this study are shown in Table 3-24 and Fig 3-11 General conclusions from this work were

(1) Approximately 20 wt FEM AP is required to meet the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosities were in the range of 18 to 19 kP at 520C (1250F)

3-64

1 1 0902286

0802032 - 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 200

AD + 200 CU-0202 P

KZ 1778 690 Ncm2 (1000 psa) -070 E 200CU-0202 P

0 -060 O 1524

lt I- 345 Ncm

2 (500 psa) 200 AD 200CU-0202 P

0501270

z z

040 D2 1016 co

z z

0762- 030n

345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 200 CU-0202 P 0200508 -

I I 0100254 I I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FEM AP LEVEL wt

Fig 3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

3-65

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder 40 DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground (72 im)

Copper chromite as received (21 1im)

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto unground

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto fine grind

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy ground (63 tim)

SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

3050 3050 3050 -3050

2850 2350 1850 850

1000 1500 2000 3000

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier) (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

Formulation No AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

Brookfield Viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) kPh after CA

End-of-mix -152067 112062 88038 2806 LU

Pot life 18417 26418 22414 shy25627 3228 27224 3237 4038 40834

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0424 (0167) 0536 (0211) 0739 (0291) 1461 (0575) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0528 (0208) 0693 (0273) 1067 (0420) 2136 (0841)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 - 038 051 052

CA = curative addition

Table 3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (2 Wt Ballistip Modifier)

Batch No Formulation No

Ingredientswt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate

FEM ground 63 Pm

Brookfield End-of-Mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F)

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-135 AN-69

1200

1500

200

3050

2550

1500

10000

19

0437 (0172)

0660 (0260)

058

SB-136 SB-137 AN-70 AN-71

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

3050 3050

1550 2050

2500 2000

10000 10006

18

0884 (0348) 0615 (0242)

0242 (0489) 0930 (0366)

051 060

3-68

Based on these results formulation AN-71 with 2 wt as received CUshy0202 P and 20 wt FEM AP was selected for additional evaluation with

a scale-up batch and motor tests

b Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation Formulation AN-71 was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch [946 liter (25 gal) 113 kg (250 lb)] and motor tests It was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum 20 wt FEM AP and 2 wt ballistic modifier Details of the formulation are shownin Table 3-25 Formulation AN-71 was successfully mixed in the 946-liter (25-gal) mixer and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section III-H-8-c and d Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests

were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are also summarized in Table 3-25 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The propellant end-of-mix viscosity was 28 kP at 530C (127degF) which is high but acceptable Pot life was about 2 hours

(2) The strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was 0922 cms (0363 ins) which met the goal of 089 cms at

690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(3) Strand pressure exponent was 061 Motor pressure exponents are typically lower than strand pressure exponents The generally high pressure exponent is associated with the low ballistic modifier level (2 wt CU-0202 P) and the

fine (FEM) AP

(4) Card gap tests were negative at 0 cards Therefore they met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) The propellant density and JANNAF uniaxial properties obtained were typical of properties obtainedwith the ANAPAlHTPB propellant Measured density was 16497 gcm3 at 250C (00596 lbin3 at 770 F) Sm was 89 Ncm2 (129 psi) with an em of 37 The low strain values were adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

3-69

Table 3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation

ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Type Batch Number SB-140 Formulation No AN-71

113 kg (250 lb)Batch Size

Formulation wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized) 1192 004UOP-36 004DTBH

Copper Chromite as received 21 Am 200 Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 Ammonium nitrate

Monsanto unground 3050 Monsanto fine ground 2050

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 2000

Total 10000

Brookfield Apparent Viscosities kP at 0C (OF) Time after curative addition

09 h (end-of-mix) 28 at 53 (127) 19 h 52 at 52 (125) 29 h 73 at 52 (125)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins) At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) 0445 (0175) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0612 (0241) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) 0785 (0309) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0922 (0363)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 061 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests Negative at

0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) gcm3 (lbin 3) 16497 (00596)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties Sm Ncm2 (psi) 89 (129) em 37

89 (129)Sb Ncm2 (psi)eb 37

3-70

c Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAIHTPB (gt3 HCI in Exhaust)

As has been discussed the effects on this candidate propellant system

resulting from increasing the AP content were studied A formulation

with 20 AP and burning rate modifier reduced to 2 met the burning The burningrate and Isp goal This formulation is identified as AN-71

rates and measured Isp are shown in Fig 3-12 and Table 3-26 respectively

d Summary One ANAPAlHTPB propellant formulation was

developed that conformed to the program constraints for lt3 wt HCl

in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards

classification This formulation AN-25 had a motor burning rate

-of only 053 cms at 690 Ncm2 (021 ins at 1000 psia) and a

= 716 of only 2285 N-skg (233 s) A maximumdelivered vacuum Ip E

strand burning rate of only 064 cms at 690 Ncm2 (025 ins at

1000 psia) (unbiased by RAM-225 release agent) was achieved within

the program constraints with a small-scale batch using fluid energy

Since the development work indicated thatmillground (55 [m) AP

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1300 psia)

was probably not achievable with the constraint of _3 wt HI in the

propellant exhaust development work was continued with this constraint

removed but held to a minimum Formulation AN-71 was developed to

This formulation used only 200 meet the program goals on that basis

wt copper chromite as ballistic modifier and 2000 wt fluid energy

It had a motor burning rate of 097 cms atmill ground (63 gim) AP 1000 psia) and a delivered vacuum I E = 716690 Ncm2 (038 ins at

of 2403 N-skg (245 s) Table 3-27 summarizes and compares te properties

of these two formulations versus the program goals

The following summarizes the status of the ANAPAlHTPB propellant

development

(1) The basic ANAPA1HTPB propellat ip the second most

promising candidate of the three basic propellants

to good(2) Demonstrated that a few of AP is essential

aluminum combustion

of AP is required to meet(3) Demonstrated that more than 10

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins

at 1000 psia)

(4) Formulation AN-71 with 20 wt AP met the program goals for

burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [097 cms (038 ins)

achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] and delivered

= 716 [2403 N-skg (245 s) achieved versusvacuum Is at E

goal of 21403 N-skg (245 s)] but did not meet the goal

for pressure exponent (048 achieved versus goal of K042)

It conformed to the constraint for a Class 2 propellant

but did not conform to the constraint for lt_3 wt HUl in

the propellant exhaust

3-71

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellent

Solids 88 Alumindm 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX ---

Run No E-1484

Test Date 6-10-76

BatchChg No SB-1401

Nozzle Dt init cm (in) 48636 (19148)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 46380 (1826)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3025 (6670)

Wp expended kg(ib) 3025 (6668)

Wt expended 9997

Web thickness cm (in) 4648 (1830)

tb s 698

ta s 730

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 313 (454)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 380 (551)

Pc final Ncm 2 (psia) 317 (460)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24506 (355435)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24952 (3619)

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 351 (509) (psia)

r at cCms (ins) 0665 (0262)

KN initial 2103

KN average 21987

C ms (fts) 14604 (47914)

C efficiency 972

3-72

-E-1491

6-25-76

SB-1402

48636 (19148)

46355 (1825)

3016 (6650)

3003 (6621)

9956

4630 (1823)

654

705

317 (460)

421 (610)

238 (345)

24525 (355710)

24948 (36184)

3750 (5439)

0709 (0279)

2103

-21998

14638 (48026)

975

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX --shy

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 6248797 (14o4786) 6281131 (1412055)

F (fF dttb) N (lb) 895249 (20126) 960415 (21591)

it (fF dt for ta) 6356996 (142911) 6382382(1434817)

N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 210117 (21426) 215588 (21576)

Isp efficiency 9226 9256

Isp vac ms (corr) 240214 (24495) 241008 (24576)

Expansion ratio 716 726

(5) Formulation AN-25 with 10 wt AP met the program goal for presshysure exponent (028 achieved versus goal of lt042) but did not

meet the goals for burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [053 cms (021 ins) achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] dr for delivered vacuum I eE = 716 [2285 N-skg (233 s) achieved versus goal of gt2403 N-skg (245 s)] It conformed to the constraints for a Class 2 propellant and gt3 wt hCl in the propellant exhaust

(6) Demonstrated good castability and a pot life greater than

34 hours for formulation AN-25

(7) Demonstrated acceptable castability for formulation AN-71

(8) Successfully loaded and test fired 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with both formulations

(9) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

9 ANHMXAIHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished in the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined pershyformance goals within the constraints specified One of the advantages of this basic propellant is that it contains no AP and consequently generates no HCl in the exhaust However typical formulations using

3-73

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104

1524 I 1 1 6

1016 -A BATES MOTOR DATA 4

0 5x 10 MOTOR DATA 0508 - 2

E U

n =048 KN

0254 1-- 000 10 o 0203 800-6L 8

Z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0124 - 400 4 D

0051 200 2

I 10-20025 I1 I I

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm 2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140

3-74

Table 3-27 ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Achieved Properties vs Goals

Achieved Value

SB-140SB-73 AN-71AN-25-Alternate Propellant

Goal (10 wt- AP) (20 wt AP)Property

BATES motor Burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

089 (035) 053 (021) 097 (038)acms (ins)

BATES motor lt042 028pressure exponent

-Delivered vacuum sn

E 716 N-skg (s) 2403 (2245) 2285 (233) 2403 (245)

lt3 30 631C1 in exhaust

Meets card gap yes Required yesrequirement for Class 2 (negative (negative

at 0 cards)at 0 cards)

a45-kg (10-1b) motor test data

7) about to 20 wt HMX have theoretical Isp values

(vacuum and E 15 196 N-skg (2 s) less than comparable ANHNXAP(10)AlHTPB

formulations

Reduction in program funds and scope limited development effort on

this basic propellant to only four exploratory mixes

Two 10-g hand mixes one uncured and one a Safety Tests cured were made of formulations with 20 wt Class

A HMX to initially -Impact

check material compatibility and propellant safety properties

tests (DSC-differential scanning calorimeter) were made on both mixes

The formulations and results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-28

For comparison purposes these same safety tests were made on propellant

samples of the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-B-1123) Table 3-29

compares the safety properties of the candidate ANHMXAlHTPB formulation

AN-52 with the safety properties of PBAN baseline formulation TP-H-1123

These tests indicated

3-75

Table 3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No

Formulation No

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45 Alrosperse Premix DOA (4o)

Aluminum Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm Copper chromite as received Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 pm HMX Type II Class A

(DOA coated) Ammonium nitrate ground Ammonium nitrate unground

(+60 -32 mesh screened fraction) IPDI

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight 0 fire 50 fire

Electrostatic Sensitivity J

Thermal Stability (DSC - 10OCmin heating rate)

SB-59 SB-60

AN-51 (uncured) AN-52

1108 1108

1500 1500 200 200 200 200 7

2020 2020 3410 3410

1500 1500 none shy 062 9938 10000

4318 (17 )a 4572 (18) 4826 (19 )a 508 (20)

gt128 gt128

No exotherm No exotherm over tempera- over temperashyture range 21 ture range 21 to 1490c (70 to 1490c (70

to 3000 F) to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

3-76

Table 3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAiHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-52)

Formulation TP-H-1123 (PBAN Baseline)

Batch No SB-77

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400

HTPB binder

Aluminum 1600

Ballistic modifiers 040

Ammonium perchlorate 6960

Ammonium nitrate

HMX Type II Class A

Impact sensitivity cm (in) for 18 kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4318 (18) 50 fire 4953 (195)

Electrostatic sensitivity J gt128

Thermal stability (DSC - 100 Cmin heating rate) No exotherm

over temperature range 21 to -1490c (70tto 3000F)

DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

AN-52

SB-60

1190

1500

400

4910

2000

4572 (18) 508 (20)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000F)

3-77

(1) Formulation AN-52 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123)

(2) DSC data suggested that thermal stability of the 20 wt HMX propellant and gross material compatibility over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 300 0F) were adequate

(3) Formulations with up to 20 wt HMX could be safely processed inthe JPL ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

b Burning Rate Studies Two small-scale batches (1000 g) were made varying the level of Class A HMX from 1500 to 2000 wt Strand burn rate tests were made on cured propellant from both batches The formulations and results of strand burn rate tests are shown in Table 3-30 Strand burning rates increased from 0414 to 0450 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0163 to 0177 ins at 1000 psia) with the 1500 to 2000 wt increase in Class A HMX while the strand pressure exponent remained constant at 042 Although the strand pressure exponent met the performance goal of lt042 the burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)were well below the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) These very slow burn rates suggest that the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant may not be a viable candidate for achieving program goals

c Hazard Classification Card gap samples were cast cured and tested from the two batches shownin Table 3-30 Results of the card gap tests indicated positive tests at 35 and 70 cards on both batches Therefore these formulations with 15 and 20 wt Class A HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant hazard classification one of the major constraints Propellant development work on the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant was terminated at this point

d Summary The following summarizes the status of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant development

(1) Demonstrated that 1500 and 2000 wt_ Class A HMX resulted in Class 7 propellants

(2) Achieved a strand burning rate of 0450 cms (0177 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and a strand pressure exponent of 042 with a formulation containing 2000 wt Class A HMX

(3) Demonstrated good castability of the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant

(4) Discontinued development of this basic propellant as a result of reduction in funds

3-78

Table 3-30 ANHM4XHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-82A (HMX)

ANH-1

SB-81

ANH-1

(HMX)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class A 1500 2000

Ammonium nitrate 5400 4900

Card gap tests

0 cards 35 cards 70 cards

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

1 positive 2 positive

0-310 (0122) 0414 (0163)

042

1 positive 2 positive

0340 (0134) 0450 (0177)

042

3-79

10 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work-accompshylished on the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraints specified The constraint of lt_3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was accomplished by limiting the AP level in the formulation to10 wt The constraint of a Class 2 propellant hazard classification was primarily accomplished by limiting the HMX Class (particle size) and level to meet the card gap requireshyments for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards)

a Safety Tests Safety tests were performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes containing 20 wt Class A HMX to check material compatishybility and safety properties The formulations and the test results are shown in Table 3-31 As in the case of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant these safety tests results were compared to similar safety test results on the PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123) Table 3-32 shows this comparison General conclusions were

(1) Formulation AN-50 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as TP-H-1123

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F) as determined by the DSC

(3) Formulations with-up to 20 wt HMX could besafely proshycessed in the JPL-ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

Safety tests were also performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes to check material capability and propellant safety properties when the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were incorporated into ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellants Selected level for both UOP-36 and DTBH was 004 wt Impact sensitivity electrostatic sensitivity and thermal stability (DSC) tests were made on samples from the mix with the pot-life extendshyers SB-127 and on samples from a control mix without the pot-life extenders SB-126 The formulations and test results were shown in Table 3-33 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The mix with the pot-life extenders had essentially the same impact sensitivity and electrostatic sensitivity as the control mix

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000 F) (DSC)

b Burning Rate Studies Six small-scale batches were made varying HMX particle size at two sizes Class A ( 149 lm) and Class E (15 to 20 gim) and HMX level at three levels 10 15 and 20 wt Objective of this study was to determine the effects of HMX particle

3-80

Table 3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No SB-57 (uncured)

Formulation No AN-49

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45

Alrosperse Premix 1108

DOA (40)

Aluminum 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm 200

Copper chromite as received 200

Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 Jm 1000

HMX Type II Class A (1 DOA coated) 2020

Ammonium nitrate ground 3910

IPDI none

9938

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for

18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 Fire 381 (15)a

50 Fire 43-18 (17 )a

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over (DSC at 10degCmin heating temperature range rate) 21 to 1490C

(70 to 3000 F)

SB-58

AN-50

1108

1500

200

200

1000

2020

3910

062

10000

5334 (21)

5715 (225)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples

3-81

Table 3-32 -Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate--ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-50)

Formulation TP-H-1123 AN-50

(PANbaseline)

Batch Number SB-77 SB-58

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400 ---

HTPB binder --- 1190

Aluminum 1600 1500

Ballistic modifiers 040 400

Ammonium perchlorate 6960 1000

Ammonium nitrate --- 3910

HMX Type II Class A --- 2000

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4572 (18) 5334 (21)

50 fire 4953 (195) 5715 (225)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability (DSC at 100Cmin heating No exotherm over No exotherm-over rate) temperature rangeru temperature range

21 to 1490C 21 to 149 0 Cshy(70 to 3000 F) (70 to 3000 F)

size and level on propellant hazard classification (card gap tests) strand burningrates and relative castability Tests were performed on- samples from each of these batches and the results are summarized in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 alongwith-the formulations Results of the card gap tests and relative castability are discussed in the hazards classification and processing sections respectively The strand burn- ing rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) were plotted versus HMX level in Fig 3-13 forthe two different HMXparticle sizes Class A and Class E Although the strand burning rates are biased to faster values by the

3-82

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests

Formulations for 10-g Hand Mixes

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate attritor ground (44 pm)

Copper chromite attritor

ground (17 Pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (63 gm)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-Nshycyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine)

DTBH (ditertiary butyl hydroquinone)

Safety Tests (Cured Propellant)

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight)

0 Fire

50 Fire

SB-126 SB-127

ANH-16A (Control) ANH-30

1200 1192

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1300 1300

100 1000

004

0-04

10000 10000

43 (17) 57 (19)

52 (205) 51 (20)

3-83

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests (Continuation 1)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over No exotherm over

(DSC at 10degCmin heating rate)

temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000F)

temperature range 21 to 149 0C (70 to 3000F)

RAM-225 release agent the relative ranking and trends are believed to be valid General conclusions from these rankings and trends are as follows

(1) The fine particle size HMX Class E (15-20 pm) gave signifishycantly faster burning rates than the coarse Class A (=149 pm) HMX

(2) The fine particle size HMX Class E gave lower pressure exponent than the coarse Class E HMX

(3) Strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) increased significantly with HMX level to about 15 wt and tended to level in the 15 to 20 wt range

From burning rate considerations the fine size Class E HMX was preferred because it gave faster burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponents Formulation ANH-5A [Batch SB-85A(HMX)] was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed in Sections III-H-10-f and III-H-10-g on Scale-up and Ballistic Evaluation

Cured propellant strands to this point in the program had been prepared by casting the uncured propellant into molds which formed individual strands and which had been coated with RAM-225 release agent Test data from the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings(from Batch SB-89 (first scale-up batch) revealed a large discrepancy between strand burn rates and the 45-kg (10-1b) motor burn rates An investigation of this discrepshyancy revealed that the RAM-225 was the cause Strands were prepared in5 the following three ways and tested for comparison

(1) Strands cured in the RAM-225 release molds and restricted

(2) Strands cut from a solid block of cured propellant and restricted

(3) Strands cut from a block of cured propellant then given light spray coat of RAM-225 dried in 710 C (1600F) oven then restricted

3-84

Table 3-34 ANH-MXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class A

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchlorate

ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates2

at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500to 1000 psia)

SB-88

ANH-8

1200

1500

200

200

1000

4900

1000

2 negative

1 negative

0480(0189)a

6 65 (0 2 62 )a0

048

SB-83 SB-84

ANH-3 NH-4

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1500 2000

4400 3900

1000 1000

-

1 positive 1 positive

2 positive 2 positive

0 622 (0 245 )a 05 41(02 13 )a

0826 (0 32 5)a 0 7 47 (02 94 )a

041 047

3-85

Table 3-34 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) (Continuation 1)

Shore A Hardness (3 s) 81 80 82

Relative Castability Good Good Good

aStrands were cast into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

Results of the tests are summarized in Table 3-36 and Fig 3-14 Very good agreement was obtained between the burn rate of strands cured in the RAM-225 release mold and strands cut from a cured block of propelshy

lant and then sprayed with RAM-225 However both these sets of burn

rates were erroneously fast compared to the 5 x 10 motor burn rates In contrast the strand burn rates obtained from cut strands which were

not treated with RAM-225 were much slower and agreed fairly well with motor data

A brief investigation was made to determine the composition of RAM-225 and whether it could be used as an improved ballistic modifier in the propellant formulation Chemical analysis of RAM-225 indicated

that it is a high molecular weight silicone oil in the solvents isopropashynol and heptane Two 38-liter (1-gal) batches of propellant were made with 015 wt dimethyl silicone (1000 cS) One batch had 400 wt mixed ballistic modifiers (ammonium dichromate and copper chromite) and

the other batch had 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier Both batches made with the 015 wt dimethyl silicone showed signs of viscosity buildup even before curative addition The batch with the 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier became too viscous to process to completion Tests results on the successfully completed batch with 015 wt dimethshyyl silicon [Batch SB-107 (HMX)] are shown in Table 3-37 Test results from Batch SB-108 (HMX) are also included in this table for comparative purposes General conclusions from these tests are as follows

(1) No significant changes in strand burning rates were observed due to addition of 015 wt dimethyl silicone

(2) The dimethyl silicone caused rapid propellant viscosity buildup even before curative addition and therefore the material appears impractical from propellant processing considerations

A series of six small-scale (1000 g) batches was made with the specific objectives of increasing propellant burn rate improving castashybility and improving burn rate reproducibility US Agri-Chemicals (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent was used for all six batches The following variables were evaluated

3-86

0

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations --HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchloshyrate ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

32 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770 F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-87 SB-85A SB-86

ANH-7 ANH-5A ANH-6

1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500

200 200 200

200 200 200

1000 1500 2000

4900 4400 3900

1000 1000 1000

2 neg -

1 neg

I neg 2 neg 1 pos

1 pos

(500 psia) 0 767 (0 302 )a 0 930 (0 366 )a 0912(0359)a

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0970(0382)a 1105 (0 43 5 )a 1 128 (0444 )a

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2

(500to 1000 psia) 033 024 031

3-87

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation

(Class E HMX) (Continuation 1)

89 88Shore A Hardness (3 s) 90

Relative Castability Fair Fair Marginal

aStrands were east into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

(1) Ammonium nitrate particle size Replacement of part or all of the large unground prills by a coarse-ground ammor nitrate

(2) Plasticizer type Replacement of DOA (dioctyl adipate) by IDP (isodecyl pelargonate)

Relative castability and strand burn rates were measured on each batch Results of this study are summarized in Tables 3-38 and 3-39 and Fig 3-15 General conclusions regarding propellant burn rates from the study were as follows

(1) Replacement of the very large unground ammonium nitrate prills by coarsely ground ammonium nitrate reduced propelshy

lant burning rate

(2) Replacement of DOA by IDP slightly reduced propellant burnshying rate (Q2)

(3) Strand pressure exponents were typically 036 or less well within the goal of lt042

(4) The US Agri-Chemical (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent handled without caking and had less tendshyency to size reduce during handling tand mixing These

factors should improve propellant burn rate reproducibility

The reduction in burn rate by replacement of unground prills with coarseshyly ground AN was unexpected and inconsistent with usual solid propellant experience Usually propellant burn rate increases with increasing fractions of ground oxidizer The mechanism for this unusual response has not been identified to date Formulation ANH-12 Batch SB-94 (HMX)

had the fastest burn rate 0836 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0329 ins at 1000 psia) consistent with acceptable castability Therefore it was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of replacing bamer mill ground AP with the finer fluid energy mill (FEM) ground AP on propellant properties Micromerograph analysis

3-88

270I 050-K STRAND BURN RATES BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

CLASSE HMXZ 1016 040 0 0ashy10

7CLASS AHMX 0762 - 030 Z

z nD 2

z - -

Ce 0508 -020 1 F-I) 0 5 10 15 20

HMX wt

Fig 3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-89

Table 3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)

Strand Burning Rate cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

Strands cured Strands cut 5 x 10 motor Strands cut in RAM-225 from cured firings from cured

Pressure released mold block of block of Ncm 2 (psia) propellant propellant

sprayed with RAMshy225 dried and tested

690 (1000) 0991 (0390) 0721 (0284) 0660 (0260) 0983 (0387)

517 (750) 0876 (0345) - 0662 (0245)

345 (500) 0765 (0301) 0599 (0236) 0549 (0216) 0785 (0309)

172 (250) 0572 (0225) - 0457 (0180)

Pressure 042 027 028 033 exponent

indicated that the fluid energy mill AP had a mass median diameter of 63 Am compared to 90 pm for typical hammer mill ground AP Batch SB-110 (HMX) was made using 1700 wt Class E HMX and 1000 wt of the FEM AP A reference batch SB-98 (HMX) was made using the hammer mill ground AP Strand burn rates and relative castability were detershy

mined on both of the batches Results are shown in Table 3-40 and Fig 3-16

(1) Replacement of the hammer mill ground (9 pm) AP by the FEM ground (63 pm) AP increased strandburn rate to 0950 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0374 ins at 1000 psia) This exceeds the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) Strand pressure exponent appeared to be reduced with use of the FEM ground AP

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of finer ballistic modifier particle size on propellant properties As discussed in the ANAPHTPB propellant development section an attritor mill was used to size reduce the ballistic modifiers ammonium dichroshymate and copper chromite Batch SB-117 (HMX) was made using 200 wt

3-90

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPBbinder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper Chromite

Dimethyl silicone

(1000 cS)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground US Steel with anti-caking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground US Steel with antishycaking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium perchlorate ground

SB-l08 (Reference)

AN-20

1200

1500

200

200

-

2000

-

2900

-

1000

1000

SB-107 SB-109

ANH-19 ANH-21

1185 1185

1500 1500

200 100

200 100

015 015

2000 2000

2900 3100

-

1000 1000

- -

1000 1000

3-91

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations -Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation (Continuation 1)

Relative Castability Excellent Uncastable Mix could not castability be completed

cured up in mix bowl

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0665 (0262) 0673 (0265) -

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0818 (0322) 0808 (0318) -

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 026

Card gap tests

35 cards

55 cards

69 cards 3 positive 3 positive

attritor ground (17 pm) copper chromite 1700 wt Class E HMX and FEM ground (63 pm) AP No ammonium dichromate was used in this batch as a part of the overall effort to achieve the burning rate goal 089

cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with improved performance (Isc)castability and physical properties Reference Batch SB-116 (AN ) was made using as received (21 pm) copper chromite Table 3-41 summarizes results of Brookfield end-of-mix visosity and strand burn rate tests on these two batches These results led to the following conclusions

(1) In an IDP plasticized formulation using only 200 wt CU-0202 P as ballistic modifier coarse ground AN and 63 Im FEM ground AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 m increased the strand burn rate at 690

Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0724 to 0737 cms (0285 to 0290 ins) t_2

(2) No significant change in strand pressure exponent was observed

(3) Castability was good for both batches

3-92

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103

25401 0 1 100

2032 - A CURED IN RAM-225 RELEASED STRAND MOLD - 8

B STRAND CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK

1524- BURNED WITHOUT TREATMENT 6

EU C STRANDS CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK SPRAYED WITH RAM-225 DRIED THEN BURNED ui

1016- 4 0C oD

z 7I- 0 z z z

CA _B

o 0o

z z0508 2

V)

BATCH No SB-89 (HMX)

FOMULATION ANH-9

0254 I I i I 10-1 69 103 138- 207 345 690

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (IIX) Formulation ANH-9

3-93

Table 3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size

Variation (Class E HMX - DOA Plasticizer)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with antishycaking coating)

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with

anticaking coating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative castability

Strand burning rates

at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(at 1000 psia)

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-90 SB-91 SB-93 SB-95

ANH-9 ANH-10 ANH-11 ANH-13

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

1500 1500 1500 1500

4400 2900 1760

- 1500 2640 4400

_

1000 1000 1000 1000

Uncastable Uncastable Marginally Castable castable

- 0678 0678 0516 (0 267 )a (0234)a (0 2 0 3 )a

0953 0859 0859 0665 -(0 3 7 5 )a (0 3 3 8 )a (0 299)a (0 2 6 2 )a

034 035 036

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were cut

from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased

by RAM-225 release agent

3-94

Table 3-39 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX - IDP Plasticizer)

Batch No SB-94 SB-96

Formulation No ANH-12 ANH-14

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticizer) 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium diohromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class E 1500 1500

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 2900

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 1500 4400

Ammonium perchlorate ground 1000 1000

Relative Castability Good castability

Excellent castability

Strand burning rates at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

-

0836 (0 329 )a

0518 (0 204 )a

0655 (0258) a

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were

cut from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased by RAM-225 release agent

3-95

1016 1 040

eE aQCNO

DOA PLASTICIZER

z CI-o 100

lt 0762 030 - I--

IDP PLASTICIZER

z Z

a a z z

--- 1-shy

0508 I-I I I20

cn

0 20 40 60 80 100 FRACTION OF COARSE GROUND AN wt

Fig 3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN

3-96

C

Table 3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations -AP Particle Size Variation (HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

Ammonium perchloriate hammer mill ground (Micromerograph 50 wt point 9 gim)

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (Mieromerograph 50 wt point 63 pm)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 45 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Relative Castability

3-97

SB-98 ANH-16 Reference

1200

1500

200

200 shy

1700

2700

1500

1000

0653 (0257)

0810 (0319)

030

Good

castability

SB-110 ANH-16

1200

1500

200

200

1700

2700

1500

-

1000

0843 (0332)

0950 (0374)

017

Good castability

slightly more viscous than SB-98 (HMX)

1270 1 050

K K

CN4 E 0

1016 040 0

o 0

100

BURN RATE GOAL

z z

= 0762 - 030 D

z z

05081 I I I I 020 40 50 60 70- 80 90 100t

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) gm

Fig 3-16i Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-98

Table 3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Particle Size Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Copper chromite

As received (21 pm)

Attritor ground (17 pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground

Total

Relative castability

Brookfield end-of-mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F) Strand burning rates at 250C

(770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

3-99

SB-116 (Reference) SB-117

ANH-24A ANH-24B

1200 1200

1500 1500

200

- 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1500 1500

1000 1000

10000 10000

Good Good

168 136

0610 (0240) 0627 (0247)

0724 (0285) 0737 (0290)

028 024

As was observed with the ANAPAIHTPB propellant reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burn rates

Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better optimize the ballistic modifier system for the basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB propelshylant Previous to this point in the program the mixed ballisticmodifishyer system of 200 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) with 200 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was used It was desirable to reduce the total ballistic modifier level to less than 400 wt and recover some shy

performance (II delivered) Elimination of AD was also desirable because of its tendency to crosslink the R-45 prepolymer with subsequent degradation of propellant castability and physical properties Batches SB-132 (HMX) and SB-138 (HMX) were made using only as-receivedCU-0202 P as the ballistic modifier at the 200 wt and 300 wt levels respecshytively The objective of testing these two batches was to determine whether the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm

2

(1000 psia) could be achieved by using only CU-0202 P at levels less than 400 wt Brookfield end-of-mix and strandburning rates were measured on both batches Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-42 and they indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate achieved with 300 wt as-received CU-0202 P was 6nly 0810 cms (0319 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(2) Based on extrapolation the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) does not appear achievshyable even at 400 wt as-received CU-0202 P

(3) A mixed ballistic modifier system of AD and CU-0202 P appears necessary to meet the burning rate goal

The third batch SB-134 (HMX) was made using the mixed ballistic modifier system of 100 wt hammer mill ground (72 m) AD and 200 wt as-received CU-0202 P Brookfield viscosity and strand burning rates were also measured on this batch and results are also shown in Table 3-42 They indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate of 0879 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0346 ins at 1000 psia) was achieved with Batch SB-134 (HMX) This almost meets the goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosity of 21 kP at 520C (125 0 F) indicated the propellant had acceptable castability

Limited time and budget did not allow for any additional optimization of the ballistic modifier system Therefore Formulation ANH-33 [Batch SB-134 (HMX)] was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed inthe sections on Scale-Up and Ballistic Evaluation

3-100

---

Table 3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 [m

Ammonium dichromate Hamshymer mill ground 72 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

HMX Class E

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground 63 pm

Brookfield End-of-mix Viscosity kP at 520C (1250F)

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-132

ANH-34

1200

1500

200

2900

1500

1700

1000

10000

33

(500 psia) 0594 (0234)

At 690 Ncm2 0757 (0298) (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

3-101

SB-138 SB-134

ANH-32 ANH-33

1200 1200

1500 1500

300 200

--- 100

2800 2800

1500 1500

1700 1700

1000 1000

10000 10000

Could not 21 measure

0630 (0248) 0615 (0242)

0810 (0319) 0879 (0346)

036 051

In summary the following approaches were investigated as methods

of achievins faster propellant burning rates and the goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncmd (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(1) HMX class (particle size)

(2) HMX level

(3) Dimethyl silicone as ballistic modifier

(4) Finer AN particle size

(5) Finer AP particle size

(6) Finer CU-0202 P particle size

(7) Ballistic modifier type and level

Of these only (1) (2) (5) and (7) proved to be effective approaches

to faster burning rates

c Hazards Classification The Naval Ordnance Station (NOS) did some of the initial propellant hazard classification testing to define the maximum level of HMX which could be used and remain a Class 2 propellant The basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB formulation selected for testing was an 88 wt total solids HTPB (R-45) formulation with 150

wt aluminum and 10 wt ammonium perchlorate Tests were planned on formulations with and without the ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P Table 3-43 summarizes results of these hazard tests These results indicated that 20 wt Class E HMX (15 Mm)in non-ballistic modified formulations gave propellants which marginally met card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards) AP particle size appeared to affect card gap test results No firm conclusions could be made regarding the ballistic modified formulations

This effort to define the maximum HMX level for a Class 2 ballisshytic modified propellant was continued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with AFRPL support Card gap tests made on the ballistic modified formulations reported in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 are summarized in Table 3-44 for convenience

General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Maximum level of Class A HMX is greater than 1000 wt and less than 1500 wt for a ballistic modified formulation

to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

(2) Maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1500 wt and less than 2000 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

3-102

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Ingredients wt

AN (unground) 430 430 4776 4279 390 3862

AP 45p m 100 - - -

AP 6 [m - - 995 995 - -

AP 4 [m - 100- - - - -

AP 2 4m - - - - 100 99

HMX 15 pm 200 200 1493 1990 200 198

Al H-12 150 150 1493 1493 150 1485

HTPB Binder 120 120 1243 1243 120 1287

AD - - - - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

CU-0202 P - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

Lab Safety Tests

Impact sensitivity mm 375 375 350 275 -

Friction kg (lb) gt444 gt444 gt444 gt444 -

(980) (980) (980) (980)

ESD J gt125 L125 125 gt125

Field Safety Tests

Card gap cards 55 to 65 to 0 60 to 35 to 55 to 60 70 - 65 50 60

Cap neg neg neg neg neg neg

3-103

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data (Continuation 1)

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Unconfirmed burning neg neg neg neg neg neg

Critical dia cm (in) gt64 gt64 gt64 gt64 lt89 lt89 (25) (25) (25) (25) (35) (35)

aX-ray of samples showed evidence of voids

Table 3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A with Class E)

Batch No HMX Card Gap

Wt Class Positive Negative Cards

SB-88 10 A - 2 0 - 1 -35

SB-83 15 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-84 20 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-87 10 E - 2 0 - 1 35

SB-85A 15 E - 32 - 2 35

SB-86 20 E 1 - 35 1 70

Class E HMX was selected because higher levels could be incorporated and remain a Class 2 propellant and because it gave the best ballistic properties

3-104

Two additional small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better define the maximum level of Class E HMX The Class E HMX was varied to the 1900 wt and 1700 wt levels for Batches SB-97 (HMX) and SB-98 (HMX) respectively Card gap sensitivity strand burning rates and relative castability were measured in both batches Table 3-45 shows the test results These tests indicated the maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1900 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

The 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches were made varying Class E HIX level to 1500 1700 and 1750 wt Card gap verification tests were made on these batches as shown later in Table 3-49 and test results are summarized in Table 3-46

Results of all the tests indicated the maximum level of Class E IHMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt for a ballistic

) modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

d Processing Studies The relative castability of propellant was observed on the small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) development batches and used in the selection of formulations for evaluation in the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches Brookfield end-of-mix and pot life tests were measured on all of the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches

The coarse Class A HMX (W149 gim) has a better particle size than the fine Class E HMX (15 - 20 pm) for solids packing Consequently the Class A HMX yielded propellants with better castability than the Class E HMX (Table 3-35) However Class E HMX was selected for all the scale-up batches because higher HMX levels could be used and ballistic properties were better (faster burn rates and lower pressure exponents) The level of MX was generally limited by Class 2 card gap constraints before castability became unacceptable

The lower viscosity plasticizer IDP yielded propellants with significantly better castability than the plasticizer DOA with only a slight loss in propellant burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) (Tables 3-38 and 3-39) Therefore IDP was the selected plasticizer

Replacement of the very coarse unground AN prills by coarselyground AN improved castability but reduced propellant burning rate Consequently the fraction of AN coarse ground was limited to 34 to maximize burn rate consistent with good castability (Tables 3-38 and 3-39

Replacement of the hammer mill ground (90 14m) AP by the fluid energy mill ground (63 jim) AP made the propellant more viscous but castability remained good (Table 3-40) This change significantly increased propellant burning rate and made the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) achievable (Fig 3-16) Therefore the fluid energy mill ground AP (63 pm) was selected for use when it became available

3-105

Table 3-45 ANHMXAPAHTPB-Formulation-z HMX Level (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating)

Ammonium nitratecoatse -ground (US Steel with anticaking c6ating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative Castability shy

-

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards

55 Cards

69 Cards

3-166

SB-97 SB98 ANH-15 ANH-16

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1900 1700

-2500 2700

1500 1500

1000 1000

Good Good

castability castability

0678 (0267) 0653 (0257)

0826 (0325) 0810 (0319)

028 030

1---positive

--- 1 positive

4 positive 2 negative

---

---

---

---

---

Table 3-46 JPL Hazard Test Data (Class E)

HMX Batch No

Wt Class

SB-89 (HMX) 15 E

SB-92 (HMX) 15 E

SB-106 (HMX) 175 E

SB-141 (H4X) 17 E

Positive

4

3

I

I

I

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

2

1

Card Gap

Negative Cards

6 0

10 35

2 0

5

--- 10

--- 15

--- 20

--- 27

3 30

5 35

--- 69

2 70

--- 35

--- 60

--- 61

--- 62

3 63

1 65

10 69

3-107

Replacement of the as-received CU-0202 P (21 pm) by attritor ground CU-0202 P (17 pm) did not significantly affect propellant castashybility Since this change increased burning rate by only 2 the asshyreceived (21 pm) CU-0202 P was selected Increasing the Cu-0202 P level from 200 to 300 wt significantly increased propellant viscosity making it less castable (Table 3-42)

Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were shown to signifishycantly improve castability and pot life with the ANAPAlHTPB propellant After checking to determine these materials were compatible and safety properties were adequate these pot-life extenders were incorporated into the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant

e Combustion Problems The problem of incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered speciflc impulse was addressed for the basic ANHMXAPAlHTBP propellant early in the program Two approaches evaluated to improve metal combustion I Land delivered specific impulse were

(1) Use of aluminummagnesium (AlMg) alloys

(2) Replacement of aluminum by magnesium

This work (by NOS) was done concurrently Mith the development -CV of the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant using conventional aluminum For convenience and clarity all of the NOS propellant development work done with the R-45 HTPB binder is reported and discussed in this section

Table 4-47 summarizes results of motor tests on ANHMXAPA1HTPB propellants with no ballistic modifiers Propellant formulation variations made were

(1) Total solids loading (87 to 88 wt )

(2) AP particle size (20 and 200 [m)

(3) HMX (Class E) level (20 and 30 wt )

(4) Metal level (15 to 20 wt ) shy

(5) Metal type (Al -and AlMg alloy)

The motors tested were either 4536-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors or 1814-kg (40-1b) charge (FPC) motors at sea level conditions Corrections to vacuum conditions with E = 685 were made as shown in Table 4-47 General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Motor burning rates at 483 Ncm2 (700 psia) were all in the range of 0356 to 0457 cms (014 to 018 ins) Ballistic modifiers are required to meet burning rate goal of 089 Ncm2 (035 ins) with a pressure exponent of

042

3-108

Table 3-47 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation

Specific Impulse

Propellant Data N-skg (s)

Burning rate at 483 Ncm

2

AP Vacuumd (700 psi)Motor Percent Particle Percent Percent

Typeb of AP Size m of HMX of Metal Type of Metal Delivered c = 685 cms (ins)

TPC 10 200 20 20 Aluminum 19476 (1986) 0356 (014)

20 19 AlMg (9010) 19760 (2015) 21633 (2206) 0381 (015)TPCa 200

TPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 21114 (2153) 22271 (2271) 0381 (015)

TPC 200 20 15 AlMg (9010) 20359 (2076) 20908 (2312) 0356 (014)

0 TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20398 (2080) 22467 (2291) 0356 (014)

TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23134 (2358) 0356 (014)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 21045 (2146) 23222 (2368) 0457 (018)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23242 (2370) 0457 (018)

FPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 19192 (1957) 21898 (2233) 0445 (0175)

00 wt total solids loaded propellant the remainder are 88 wt a87 bTPC are 4536-kg (10-1b) charge motor grains

CFPC are 1814-kg (40-1b) charge motor grains dAll motor tests were made at sea level Correction to vacuum conditi6ns was made as follows

fFdt me + Pa Aeta Vac Isp ms =

CF Creq

Correction to desired expansion ratio (c req) was done by multiplying vac Isp ms by C

CF C act

(2) The maximum vac Isp ms e = 685 obtained for this series of tests were 23242 N-skg (2370 s) This was obtained using 15 wt conventional Al 20 wt Class E HMX and 10 wt 20 jim AP The performance goal was vac Isp ms

E = 71 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(3) Reducing the AP particle size from 200 to 20 gm significantly improved vac Isp ms pound1177 N-skg (C12s)] and increased

burning rate

(4) Increasing the Class E HMX level from 20 to 30 wt signishyficantly increased vac Is ms 686 N-skg (-7 s) However propellant with 30 wt C ass E HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Increasing the metal level from 15 wt to 19 or 20 wt significantly reduced vac inpMs

(6) Replacement of the conventional aluminum by the AlMg alloy

(9010) appeared to give a small performance gain 392 N-skg (14 s) However the data was too limited to draw

firm conclusions

Propellant development effort was continued in an effort to achieve the performance goals The ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P were selected based on work done by JPL In addition finer AP particle sizes were selected based on the ability of this approach to achieve both improved performance and faster burning rates A Class E HMX level of 20 wt O was selected as the maximum to meet card gap requirements for Class 2 propellants based on card gap tests available at that time Table 3-48 summarizes motor test and theoretical performance results on the three ballisttc modified propellant formulations evaluated Formushylation 2A used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system 10 wt 55 Jim AP and 15 wt conventional aluminum Formulation 2Bused 1 wt AD as ballistic modifier 10 wt 10 gm AP and 15 wt AlMg alloy (9010) Formulation 2C used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system no AP and 15 wt magnesium The motor test results shown are all from 45-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors Since several formulation variables were varied between the three formulations it is not possible to isolate just the effect of metal type on propellant performance However the following general conclusions can be made from this work

(1) Formulation 2A which used conventional aluminum was the most promising candidate The vac Isp ms E = 684of 24144 N-skg (2462 s) met the goal of vac Isp Ms E = 71 -2403 N-sks (245 s) Burning rate achieved was 076 cms at 483 Ncm (030 ins at 700 psia) compared to the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with a pressure exponent _04

(2) Formulation 2B which used the AlMg alloy (9010) had a theiretical Isp (1000147) nearly the same as formulashy

tion 2A but Vac Isp msC = 684 was only 23252 N-skg(2371 s) In addition the burning rate was only 053

3-10

---

---

Table 3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured

Propellant No

Ingredients wt

AN

AP

HMX (15 pm)

Al

AlMg alloy (9010)

Mg

AD

CU-0202 P

R-45M

DOA

Theoretical Density gcm 3

(lbin3 )

Theoretical I

(Iooo147 )a Lcm 2 (s)

Measured Isp N-skg (s) at e = 55

2A

410

100 (55 fim)

200

150

10

10

80

40

17051

(00616)

24978

(2547)

22810 (2326)

Measured Vac Is N-skg (s) 24144 corr to E = 68 (2462)

Burn rate at 483 Ncm3

(700 psia) cms 076 (ins) (030)

2B 2C

420 510

100 (10 pm) --shy

200 200

150 --shy

--- 150

10 10

--- 10

100 80

20 40

16829 16027

(00608) (00579)

24958 23997 (2545) (2447)

21310 20113 (2173) (2051)

23252 22673 (2371) (2312)

053 041 (021) (016)

aStandard Conditions Chamber pressure of 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and expanded to 1 atm (147 psia)

3-111

cms at 483 Ncm2 (021 ins at 700 psia) for this formulation This data suggests that there was no performance advantage in using the AlMg alloy compared to conventional aluminum

(3) Formulation 2C which used magnesium as the metal had theoshyretical density and theoretical Isp (1000147) values significantly lower than formulation 2A The measured Isp and burning rates confirmed that this was-the least attractive of the three formulations

This work was ended at this stage of the program Good Isp efficiencies were being achieved with conventional aluminum using 10 wt fine particlesize AP and the selected ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P

f Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Four formulashytions were selected for scale-up evaluation and motor tests throughout the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant development effort Table 3-49 shows these four formulations Major changes in the formulations which were made as a result of the development effort on the small scale were

(1) dhange from DOAt lower viscbsity lasti6izdr IDP to improveshycastability

(2) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH to improve castability and pot life

(3) Reductions of the total ballistic modifier level from 400 wt to 300 wt to improve performance

(4) Selection of 17 wt ClassE HMX to achieve maximum performance and burning rate within the constraint of a Class 2 propellant

(5) Changes in the AN type to the higher density harder prill Monsanto AN to improve castability and burn rate control

(6) Change from hammer mill ground 8-9 gm AP to the finer fluid energy mill ground 63 Itm AP to achieve faster burning rates

All four formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into 5 x 10 motors BATES motors and small-scale samples The motors were successfully tested and results are summarized and discussed in Subsection g Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

3-112

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No SB-89 SB-92 SB-106 SB-141

Formulation No ANH-9 ANH-12 ANH-18 ANH-33

Batch size kg (ib) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Ingredients wt

R-45 polymer 6470 6582 6528 6397

DOA plasticizer 4613

IDP plasticizer --- 4647 4609 4615

)OA plasticizer (HMX coating) 0187 0153 0191 0185

Lirosperse 11 P 0113 0113 0113 0113

UOP-36 0040

DTBH --- --- --- 0040

IPDI 0617 0559 0559 0610

Ammonium dichromate (ground 7 Mm) 200 200 200 100

Copper chromite (as received 21 pm) 200 200 200 200

Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500

--- --- ---

---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil U S Steel Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

U S Steel Monsanto ---

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8-9 Am fluid energy mill ground 63 Am

Totals

Brookfield apparent viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) (Viscosity kPtime after curative addition)

End-of-mix

(Continuation 1)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

1500

4400

1000

10000

2208 2018 2128

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

1500

2900

1500

1000

10000

1609 2819 2929 4139 4149

SB-106 SB-141

ANH-18 ANH-33

104 (230) 113 (250)

1750 1700

2900 2800

1250 1500

1000 --shy1000

10000 10000

1008 708 1418 1318 2228 1527 2438 2137

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Nam 2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm (750 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

20 cards 27 cards 30 cards 35 cards 60 cards 61 cards 62 cards 63 cards

65 cards

(Continuation 2)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

0599 (0236)

0721 (0284)

027

6 negative 4 positive

10 negative

---

---

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

0503 (0198) 0617 (0243) 0691 (0272) 0775 (0305)

031

2 negative 3 positive 1 positive 1 positive 3 negative 5 negative

SB-106

ANH-18

104 (230)

0566 (0223) 0683 (0269) 0767 Co302) 0818 (0322)

027

SB-141

AHN-33

113 (250)

0544 (0214) 0622 (0245) 0719 (0283) 0805 (0317)

037

1 positive 1 positive 2 positive 3 negative

1 positive 1 negative

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type (Continuation 3)

SB-89 SB-92 SB-I06 SB-141Batch No

Formulation No ANH9 ANH-12 ANH-18 AHN-33

Batch size kg (lb) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Card Gap Tests (Contd)

69 cards --- --- --- 10 negative

70cards --- --- 2 negative 6 positive

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770 F) gcm3 (lbin3 ) 16746 (00605) 16359 (00591) 16691 (00603) 16663 (00602)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties

Sm 1cm 2 (psi) --- 49 (71) --- 64

em --- 19 --- 68

44 (64)--- 49 (71) ---Sb Ncm 2 (psi)

68eb --- 19 ---

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-49 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) End-of-mix viscosities and pot life improved as changes were made to IDP plasticizer use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH and Monsanto AN End-of-mix viscosity for batch SB-141 (HMX) was 7 kP at 520C (125 0 F) and pot life was greater than 37 h

(2) Faster burning rates were achieved as the HNX level was increased as the Gulf Oil AN was replaced by US Steel AN and then by Monsanto AN and as the hammer mill ground AP was replaced by the finer fluid energy mill ground AP

(3) Maximum strand burning rate achieved at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) was 081 cms (032 ins) with batch SB-106 (HMX)

(4) Strand pressure exponents on all four formulations were in the range of 027 to 037 Motor pressure exponents were lower than strand pressure exponents These low-pressure exponents are advantageous and meet the goal of lt042

(5) Card gap tests verified that the maximum level-of Class E HMX which meets the card gap requirements for a Class 2 propellant is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt

(6) Measured densities were in the range of 16359 to 16746 gcm3 (00591 to 00605 lbin3) for the four formulations

(7) The JANNAF uniaxial properties were oor with maximum stress values in the range of 44 to 49 Ncm (64 to 71 psi) and strain at maximum stress values in the range of 19 to 68

g Ballistic Evaluation ANHMXAPAIHTPB Systems The candidate alternate propellant containing HMX was evaluated in BATES motor firings at three levels of HMX 150 170 and 175 The 150 HMX formulation yielded the highest measured Isp Theoretical calculations had shown 170 to 175 to be optimum for maximum Isp Data from the BATES motor tests suggests that the actual optimum HMX level is somewhere between 15 and 16 This level of HMX in the propellant has been demonstrated to be within the Class 2 requirement The ballistic test data for the three HMX systems follows

(1) Formulation ANH-12 (150 HMX) Figure 3-17 shows the burning rate KN and pressure exponent for this propellant The BATES motor test data is summarized in Table 3-50

(2) Formulation ANH-39 (170 HMX) The ballistic evaluation test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-18 and Table 3-51

3-117

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104 61524 1 1 1

41016-

-2 2lt E0508-

0 KN -IA BATES MOTOR DATA KN

100 1 -1 0264 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 1000 10

0 0203_ 800 -8 0152 n 0310152 600 6

D 0102 - 400 -4

0051 - 200 - 2

I I I I 100025 1 -2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895 2

PRESSURE Ncm

Figure 3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92

3-n18

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No E-1466 E-1467

Test Date Nov 14 1975 Nov 26 1975

BatchChange No SB-921 SB-922

Nozzle Bt initial 4699 3764 cm (in) (1850) (1482)

Nozzle Dt final 4374 3571 cm (in) (1722) (1406)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 2981 2979 (6572) (6567)

Wp expended kg (ib) 29395 2940

(64806) (6482)

wt expended 986 987

Web thickness cm (in) 45789 4610 (18207) (1815)

tb (burn time) s 735 586

ta (action time) s 764 624

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 310 531 (450) (770)

PC max Ncm2 (psia) 386 731 (560) (1060)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 376 702 (545) (1018)

AP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26245 41056 (38066) (59547)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26779 42285 (38840) (61329)

3-119

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

Pa (3P dttb) Ncm2

(psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

It (1F dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion Ratio

E-1466

Nov 14 1975

SB-921

3511 (5179)

0630 (0248)

2253

2411

14507 (47594)

962

6193679 (1392395)

842675 (189441)

6198003 (1393367)

207921 (21202)

9249

237546 (24223)

70

E-1467

Nov 26 1975

SB-922

7006 (10162)

0787 (0310)

3511

3689

14983 k49156)

1006

6349309 (1427382)

1083497 (24358)

6559790 (147470)

220218 (22456)

916

235526 (24017)

70

3-120

PRESSURE psia

10 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 104 1524 I 6

1016 4

0508 0- 2

u KN A BATES MOTOR TESTS N

0254 - 1000 10lt 2 0 5x 10 MOTOR TESTS 8 - 1

0203800g- 8

Z 0152 n 037 600 6 z z

0102 400 4

0051 -- 200 2

I I1 -2

0025 69 138 345 690 1379 t 3447 6895

-PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 AHHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-141

3-121

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 PropellantTable 3-51

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

E-1490E-1489Run No

62376 62476Test Date

SB-1412 SB-1411BatchChange No

352684572Nozzle Dt initial cm (in) (1800) (13885)

3444Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 4531

(1784) (1356)

30133017W loaded kg (ib) (6651) (6643)

29332938Wp expended kg (lb) (6477) (6466)

97339738 wt expended

Web thickness cm (in) 4633 4643 (1824) (1828)

570747tb (burn time) s

638 ta (action time) S

794

Pc initialNem2 (psia) 345 683 (500) (990)

362 Pc maximum Ncm2 (psia) 752 (525) (1090)

Pc final Ncm2 N(psia) 324 649 (470) (942)

41665fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 25961 (37654) (6043)

ft dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26554 42802 (6208)(38514)

Pc ( P dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 347 731 (524) (1060)

3-122

Table 3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

r at P0 cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

F dt (tb) Ns (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

it cfF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion ratio (E)

De cm (in)

2Ae cm (in2 )

3-123

E-1489 E-1490

62376 62476

SB-1412 SB-1411

0620 0815 (0244) (0321)

2330 3989

2395 4077

143Q7 13540 (46940) (44421)

945 895

5979680 6258348 (1344286) (1406933)

8007 10978 (1800) (2468)

60958 64441 (13704) (14487) 202056 21388

(20604) (2181)

887 872

23183 22810 (2364) (2326)

716 716

12233 9426 (4816) (3711)

117522 69781 (18216) (10816)

(3) Formulation ANH-18 (175 HMX) The ballistic evaluation

test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-19 and Table 3-52

h Summary Two ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant formulations were developed that conformed to the program constraints for 3 wt HCl in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards classification These two formulations are ANH-12 (15 wt Class E HMX) and ANH-33 (17 wt Class E HMX) Table 3-53 summarizes and compares the properties of these two formulations versus the program goals Both formulations met the goals for pressure exponent and hazard classification but not the goal for burning rateor delivered vacuum I

The following summarizes the status of the ANH4XAPAlHTPB propellant development

(1) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic propellants

(2) Demonstrated the propellant is Class 2 with levels of Class E HMX up to 17 wt

(3) Demonstrated good castability and pot life greater than 37 h for formulations with 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(4) Successfully loaded and test fired 45-kg (10-1b) motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with formulations containing 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(5) Demonstrated a delivered vacuum Isp (E = 716) of 23752 N-skg (2422 s) with formulation ANH-12

(6) Demonstrated a BATES motor burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) and a pressure exponent of 037 with formulation ANH-33

(7) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

(8) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 150 and 170

11 Baseline PBAN Propellant Modification

The current baseline propellant system in the Shuttle SRM is

an 86 solids 16 aluminum PBAN propellant developed by the Thiokol Corporation This baseline propellant has a burning rate of approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) pressure In order to simplify the task of matching the burning rates of the alternate propellant and the PBAN baseline-propellant at 400Ncm2 (580 psia)

-3-124

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 103

1524 I 6

1016 - 4

A BATES MOTOR DATA 0508 - 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 20508 n =031

E -_ Ko

U IN

u- 0254 - -1000 10shy0203 -800 8

oD 0 z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0102 - 400 4

0051 200 2

0025 I I I0 - 2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Figure 3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-106

3-125

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HNX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

Nozzle Dt initial 4592 3543 cm (in) (1808) (1395)

Nozzle Dt final 4463 3388 cm (in) (1757) (1334)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3022 3023 (6662) (6664)

Wp expended kg (ib) 2956 2957

(6516) (6519)

Wt expended 9781 9782

Web thickness cm (in) 4615 4615 (1817) (1817)

tb (burn time) s 788 - 628

ta (action time) s 818 665

PC initial Ncm2 (psia) 248 483 (360) (700)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 352 717 (510) (1040)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 296 622 (430) (902)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 262146 42991 (380212) (62353)

fp dt (ta) N-scm 2 (lb-s) 265874 44074 (385619) (63924)

3-126

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HMX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 1471 3026 (4825) (9929)

r at Pc cms (ins) 0587 0734 (0231) (0289)

KN initial 2353 3953

KN average 2421 4131

C ms (fts) 14159 13741 (46425) (45083)

C efficiency 945 916

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 599055 6320560 (134673) (1420919)

F (fF dttb) N (ib) 7602 100645 (1709) (22626)

it (fF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s) 608823 6498885 (136869) (1461008)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 201478 215001 (20545) (21924)

Isp efficiency 8901 8868

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s) 231761 229240 (23633) (23376)

Expansion ratio 71 72

3-127

Table 3-53 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goal

Achieved Value

Alternate Propellant SB-92 (HMX) SB-141 (HMX)

Property Goal ANH-12 ANH-33 (15 HMX) (17 HMX)

Burning Rate at 089 0785 0813 690 Ncm 2 (035) (0309) (032) (1000 psia) BATES Motor cms (ins)

Pressure Exponent lt042 032 037 BATES motor

Delivered Vacuum 2403 23732 23183 Isp N-skg (s) (gt245) (2422) (2364)

71)

HCl in Exhaust 3

Meets Card Gap Requirement for Class 2 yes yes Class 2 required (negative (negative

at 30 cards) at 30 cards)

pressure it was decided to miodify the baseline propellant system to

meet a burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) This modified baseline applies to the dual propellant concept with the alternate propellant only It does not apply to the current Shuttle design requirements The 081 cms (03 ins) burning rate has been achieved and demonstrated in 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings The modified PBAN formulation is referred to in this report as the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

In modifying the basic PBAN formulation to meet the new burning

rate requirement a study was made of the effect on the burning rate of adjusting the Fe203 burning rate catalyst concentration and the

particle size blend of the AP oxidizer The desired burning rate was achieved with a formulation containing a biomodal blend of

Table 3-54 gives the final formulationoxidizer and 0 Fe203 the density and some burning characteristics of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

3-128

Table 3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend

Ingredients Wt

Ammonium perchlorate

200 pm 4900 10 pm 2100

Aluminum (Alcoa 1230) 1600

PBAN polymer 1204

DER-331 196

10000

Density 2500 (770F) = 17743 gcm3 (00641 lbin3 ) Burn Rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 081 cms (032 ins) Pressure exponent n = 0228 at I

345 Ncm 2 (00 psia) lt Pc lt 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

The burning rate of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant was verified by test firing several 5 x 10 motors using 45 kg (-10 lb) of propellant over a range of pressures Figure 3-20 shows the burning rates and corresponding Kn values The burning rate equation for this modified PBAN propellant based on the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings is

r = 00668 PC0228

3-129

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 8104

1524 6

1016- 4

0508 - 2

E K - 0 5x 10 MOTOR DATAshy

0254 - 1000 10 - 1

0203 n = 0228 800 8 z 0152- a = 00668 600 6

z z 0102 -400 4

200 20051

0025 _I _I I I 10-2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant)

Batch No SB-78

3-130

SECTION IV

UNWORKED AREAS

The program as originally planned included a significant effort in the development of the candidate alternate propellant physical propshyerties and checks to verify adequacy of candidate alternate propellant in the bipropellant grain The reduction of funds and scopeof the program left many of these tasks unworked If the alternate propelshylant concept for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Motor is pursued on another program then the following unworked areas should be worked

(1) Candidate alternate propellant physical property improvement

(2) Physical property characterization of unaged alternate

propellant

(3) Aging of alternate propellant

(4) Bipropellant interface bond unaged and aged

(5) Alternate propellant insulation interface bond unaged and aged

(6) Performance tests at altitude on candidate alternate propellant

(7) Motor tests with bipropellant grain

(8) Characterization of alternate propellant safety properties

The generally poor physical properties (primarily low strain) measured with both the ANAPAlHTPB and the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propelshylants are believed due primarily to the following causes

(1) Poor bond of the HTPB binder to the oxidizer particles

AN and HMX

(2) Crosslinking of the R-45 HTPB polymer through the double bonds caused by the acidity of AN

The approach planned to solve the poor bonding properties to the oxidizer particles was development of bonding agents for both the AN and the HMX Aerojet Solid Propulsion Company has demonstrated significantly improved physical properties in HMXAPAlHTPB propellants using polyureas as bonding agents Epoxides and polyureas were considered as candidate bonding agents for the AN Development of an acid scavengershywas considered as one of the approaches to the second cause of the poor physicals

4-1

SECTION V

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this alternate propellant development effort led to the following general conclusions

(1) It is technically feasible to minimize (lt_3 wt ) release of HCl above 1981 km (65000 ft)

(2) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants Formushylation ANH-12 is the best formulation developed to date

(3) Propellant with 17 wt Class E HMX meets card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(4) The basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant is the second most promshyising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants

(5) More than 1000 wt AP (gt3 HCI in propellant exhaust) is required in the ANAPAlHTPB propellant to meet the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) Formulation AN-71 with 2000 wt AP is the best formulation of this type developed to date

(6) The basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant (0 HCl) is the least promising candidate and probably not viable for achieving program goals

(7) A few of AP is essential to achieve good aluminum comshybustion

(8) Good castability and acceptable pot life were achieved with all three basic alternate propellants

(9) Additional development effort is needed to improve the physical properties of any of the candidate propellants

(10) The small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justify the potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradashytion

(11) The Monsanto phase stabilized E-2 AN is the preferred AN type because it has the best physical and handling propershyties at comparable cost compared to other AN types

(12) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 15 and 17

5-I

(13) With additional effort to optimize the formulation with regard to HMX level burning rate modifier level and oxidizer particle size the program goals ban be met with an ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant system

5-2

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM

SOLUBILITY OF MTN INI HYDROCARBON BINDER

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

MMORANDUM

From 2051BCTo 563 Via 205

Subj Solubility of MTN in hydrocarbon binder

1 A study was conducted to determine if MTN could be used in the R45 binder system for the NASA II propellant Dicetyladipate (DOA) would be used for a co-solvent

2 Figure 1 is a portion of a phase diagram for the MTN-DOA-R45 system Areas to the right of the curve are two phase Areas to the left of the curve are single phase The effect of temperature is also shown

3 For Figure 2 TP90B was used instead of DOA TP90B is not as effective a co-solvent as DOA

4 Beccause PPG-1225 (a polypropylene glycol) is soluble both in R45 afidMTN it also was invesrigated PFG-1225 has an advantage over DOA in that it is a reactive polymer and could contribute to the mechanical strength as well as providingco-solubility In Figure 3 a 5050 mixture of R45 and PGshy1225 was used for the starting material The solubility of MTN was determined Because PPG-1225 was not a very goodco-solvent DOA was added to enhance the solubility Areas to the right of the curve are two phase and areas to the left of the curve are single phase

5 For Figure 4 a starting material of 733 R-45 and 261 PPG-1225 was used DOA was used to enhance the solubility of MTN in the system

6 It was determined that adiponitrile was not solulle in R45 and therefore could not be used to replace DOA

7 It was determined that R-18 (a polyglycol adipate) was not soluble in R45 and therefore could not be used to replacePPG-1225

8 A sample from Figure 1 was cured with IPDI This will be used to evaluate the long term effect of the nitrate ester on the binder system

Enclosure (1)

A-i

OrNA PALi I

1

ROOM--H- 2 - I

____

-OM I H j 1 35 TEMPERATURE i TI I ItI

I I I I

25

I 3 0 Z _--_ _ _

i i ii

5 n

JI t II it

t - -- -

151 1 1H - IL I

i s _ _

I- III I I I

715

MTffN 20 2 P

Figure 1 So bility of DOA and TN plusmnn R-A5

A-2

- -

40

Lj

r -

11- f

- - iutm

30 HH

-4-

__I_ ____

~ I

~vt

_

[ I_ _ iJ

25 _ _ _

1 1kH I __ _ _ _- _ _ __ _ _

-H 71

- r T--- W 4J-W-L -- t ___ __

_ _ _ __ _ _

q----i- -

52

Figure2 Solubility o f P9BadM1 nR4

A-3

iplusmn II1 -shyI~hhiI4plusmnplusmnt~~t~ -

LL J-

rO zt_-il 4 it-T i -- - -- --a -- 4- shy

-- 4 tL ---L-C-- 1 ------ 13-F- --shy

--- 4 i

I _

I I --0F

L II

it I _ _ _- _ I___

I- - -- - - - ---- shy--_ _ __ __-L J _ _

I - i t1 hIIt -____I j I

-+4 4 1 - - - -I 7 _ -J shy______ _ 2---2--I_lc_

L L rI-T- r

4 -I - -t -- u

10 15 20 25 30 N

Figure 3 Solubility of DOA and LMN in 50 R-4550 PG-1225

A-4

1

35 f

it-lt-ir

II I II

303i-- h

4o

z5-11144_FLI Lb deg T - shy i

bull

25

- -

20

I

- i11 fI1I

Ii JIf j -shy

1 iifIF

I I j I

dstkj tji--4

-4--4 1

1

I0tLLIL t

I

1wi

IFI 4 I

r

iiL -shy plusmn4 4 - H _

64211

I

L3

M -44

t

-i-

__

5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 4 ltSolubility of DOA and MTN in 733 R-45267 PPG-1225

A-5

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

9 -Ifan 88 (or 84) solids loaded 6 polymeric binder system will give acceptable physical properties then the

following formulations should be investigated

R-45 PPG1225 DA MT__N Al AP 1HM AN

10 4360 - -40 20 15 20 44 16 36 24 15 10 20 43

5360 - 40 20 15 10 10 44 1-6 36 24 15 10 10 53

15 10 20 3960 - 66 34 44 16 62 38 15 10 20 39

To properly evaluate these they should be compared to

AL AP HMK ANR-45 DOA 5360 60 15 10 20

10 53100 20 15 20

A quick look at some of the theoretical results to date indishycate that these substit-utions of - MTNfor Inert polymer -may result ina gain of about18 pounds seclb in impulse and a gain of 0001 poundscu in in density

C EJOHNSON

Copy to 205 2051BC 2051C1 TDI

A-6

PU BLICATION79-29

Page 7: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

HCI hydrogen chloride

HMX cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine

HTPB hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene-

IDP isodecyl pelargonate

IPDI isophorone diisocyanate

Isp0 specific impulse sea level optimum Pc 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) Isp ms measured specific impulse

it total impulse

KP potassium peroblorate

KN ratio of propellant burn area to throat area

kP kilopoise (1 kP = 100 N-sm2)

Mg magnesium

iam microns

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

n pressure exponent

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOS Naval Ordnance Station (Indian Head Md)

Pa ambient pressure

PHAN polybutadiene acrylic acid acrylonitrile terpolymer

Pe exit pressure

PC chamber pressure

PC average chamber pressure

PPG-1225 polypropylene glycol

Protech 2002 CSD proprietary metal-deactivating antioxidant (trade name)

r burning rate

hydroxy-terminated polyester

R-45M hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene

v

R-18

Sb tensile strength at break

SL opt sea level optimum

Sm maximum tensile strength

SRM solid rocket motor

ta action time

tb web burn time

tEWAT time at end of web action time

TMETN 111-trimethylolethane trinitrate

RAM-225 silicone oil in solvent (release agent)

UOP-36 N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine

UV ultraviolet

Nweight flow rate

W p Propellant weight

Zr Zirconium

p density

vi

ABSTRACT

This report documents the work done by the Caltech-Jet PropulsionLaboratory of NASA for the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA on a Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program The work was done as a Phase I follow-on effort to a previous Phase 0 feasibility study The program was designed to investigate three candidate propellant systems for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) which would eliminate or greatly reducethe amount of HC produced in the exhaust of the Shuttle SRM Ammonium nitrate was selected for consideration as the main oxidizer with ammonium perchlorate and the nitramine cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine (HMX) as secondary oxidizers The amount of ammonium perchlorate used was limited to an amount which would produce an exhaust containing no more than 3 HC1

Development work was carried out on three basic candidate propellantsystems (1) a mixed oxidizer of ammonium nitrate and ammonium perchlorate (2) a mixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate and HMX and (3) amixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate ammonium perchlorate and HMX All three systems contained 15 aluminum powder and had a total solids loading of 88 A urethane binder based on a hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene cured with a diisocyanate was selected as the binder system

The first and third propellant systems outlined above were developed to the point of successful scale-up and loading of 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes and successful test firing of 45-kg (10-1b) test motors and 32-kg(70-1b) BATES motors The second propellant system the ANHMX oxidizer system received only very limited development due to a out-back in both the funds and schedule time initially planned for this program All three propellants had satisfactory processing characteristics however at the 88 solids loading

The first and third propellant systems (the ANAP and the ANHMXAPoxidizer systems) were both also subjected to hazard testing and were demonstrated to conform to Class 2 hazard classification with HMX levels up to 17 wt in the HMX-containing propellant The second oxidizer combination system (the ANHMX) was not characterized as to hazards classification for the reasons mentioned earlier

The utilization of the low-Hl-producing alternate propellant was planned to be in ccmbinatidn with the current baseline PBAN propellantin a dual propellant design Therefore mutual compatibility between the two propellants was essential In order to lessen the severity of the burning rate requirement for the alternate propellant it was decided to decrease the burning rate specification for the PBAN baseline propellant to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) A modified baseline PBAN propellant formulation was therefore developed to conform to the lower burning rate specification It should be pointed out here that this modified baseline propellant system applies only to the dual propellantgrain design and does not relate in any way to the specifications of the present system being developed for the current Shuttle SRM The ballistic properties of the modified baseline PBAN propellant were demonstrated in several 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

vii

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION - 1-1

II SUMMARY- 2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPA1HTPB ------------------------- 2-2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXAlHTPB ------------------------ 2-2

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB --------------------- 2-2

D SYSTEM NO 4 MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE --------------- 2-3

III PHASE I PROGRAM -------------------------------------------- 3-1

A OBJECTIVE -------------------------------------------- 3-1

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS ---------------------------------- 3-1

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS ------------------------- 3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA ------------------------------------- 3-2

E PROGRAM APPROACH -------------------------------------- 3-2

F NOS PARTICIPATION ------------------------------------- 3-5

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE ------------ ---------------------- 3-5

H DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------- 3-6

IV UNWORKED AREAS --------------------------------------------- 4-1

V CONCLUSIONS ------------------------------------------------ 5-1

APPENDIX

A SOLUBILITY OF MTN IN HYDROCARBON BINDER -------------- A-i

Figures

3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB --------- 3-14

3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5 AP in ANAPAlHTPB --------- 315

ix

3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPAlHTPB -------------- 3-16

3-4 Specific Volume- of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature--------------------------------------- 3-26

3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ---------------------- 3-31

3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Gulf AN) ------------------- 3-39

3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-40

3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ---------------------------- 44

3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73 ---------------- 57

3-10 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74 ------ 3-58

3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTBP Propellants ---------------------------- 3-65

3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140 --------------- 74

3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-89

3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (HMX) Formulation ANH-9 ----------------------------------- 3-93

3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN ---------- 3-96

3-16 Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------ 3-98

3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92 -------------------------------------- 3-118

3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-11 ------------------------------------- 3-121

3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-l06 ------------------------------------- 3-125

x

3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant) Batch No SB-78 -------------------------------------- 3130

Tables

21 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ---------------------------------- 2-4

22 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-5

23 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-6

3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN ------------------------------------------- 3-7

3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN --------------------------------------- 3-9

3-3 Propellant Exhaust Composition ----------------------- 3-13

3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations ----------------------------------- 3-18

3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-20

3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-21

3-7 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received Properties ------------------------------------------- 3-23

3-8 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics -------------------------------------- 3-24

3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-28

3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P---------------------------------------- 3-32

3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-33

3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPA1HTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-36

3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-38

xi

3-14 Evaluation of-Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 42

3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 43

3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants -------------------------- 45

3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------- 48

3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------ 3-50

3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB

Propellants ------------------------------------------ 3-52

3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations --------- 54

3-21 BATES-Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant ---- 3-59

3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant ---- 3-61

3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Level Variations ----- 3-66

3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (2 Ballistic Modifier) ------------------- 3-68

3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation ---------- 3-70

3-26 BATES Motor Test Data Summary AN-71 Propellant ------ 3-72

3-27 AN4APAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goals --------------------------------------------- 3-75

3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests -Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------ 3-76

3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-77

3-30 ANHMXHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX) --------------- 3-79

3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------------ 3-81

3-32 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHNXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-82

xii

3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests ----------------------------------------shy 3-83

3-34 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) ------------------------------shy 3-85

3-35 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX) -----------------------------shy 3-87

3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)-----------shy 3-90

3-37 ANHNXADHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation ----------------------------- 3-91

3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX DOA Plasticizer)------------- 3-94

3-39 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX IDP Plasticizer)------------- 3-95

3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Particle Size Variation (MX) ------- ------------------------- 3-97

3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - BallisticModifier Particle Size Variation ------------------------------ 3-99

3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-101

3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data --------------------------------- 3-103

3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A With Class E)---------------------------------------- 3104

3-45 ANHMXAPAiHTPB Formulation - HMX Level (Class E HMX) ---------------------------------------- 3-106

t46-PL Hazard Test Data (Class E)----------------------- 3-107

M3-47 NOS Space ShuttleAlternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation ----------------------- 3-109

3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured -------- 3-111

3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

ANHMXAPHTPB Propellant Type ----------------------- 3-113

3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant ---- 3-119

3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-33 Propellant ---- 3-122

3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-18 Propellant ---- 3-126

xiii

3-53 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties-vs Goal ----------------------------------- 3-128

3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend --------------------------- --------------------- 3-129

xiv

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

This report presents results from the JPL study to investigatethe feasibility of developing an acceptable alternate propellant systemfor the Shuttle solid rocket motor (SEM) boosters based on the non-chlorine containing oxidizer ammonium nitrate (AN) The following basic criteria for this Phase 0 feasibility study were established by the NASA-MSFC

(1) A five-month feasibility study would be undertaken

(2) Any candidate propellants must conform to a hazards classishyfication of Class 2 as determined by card gap tests

(3) The propellant exhaust must not contain more than 3 HC Zero HCl was to be the goal

Following the above guidelines the JPL began a Phase Zero fiveshymonth feasibility program in September of 1974 (Ref 1) JPL was directedby MSFC to investigate four basic propellant systems mutually agreed upon by MSFC and JPL These four basic propellant systems were the following

(1) AN20 Albinder

(2) AN10 Albinder

(3) AN5 AP20 Albinder

(4) AN5 AP10 Albinder

Toward the end of the Phase 0 program the above four basic proshypellants had been developed to a point of scale-up of each formulation to 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes loading and test firing of 227-kg(5-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests Programresults at this point had demonstrated that

(1) Good processability of an 88 solids loaded ammonium nitrate propellant was possible (Previous to this workthe maximum solids achieved with ammonium nitrate systems was approximately 80)

(2) A few percent (5 to 10) of ammonium perchlorate as a co-oxidizer in the ammonium nitrate systems was essential to satisfactory aluminum combustion

(3) An aluminum content of 20 in the ammonium nitrate system was considerably above optimum for maximum delivered specific impulse

With these results serving as new guidelines a fifth formulation was developed and evaluated in BATES motor tests This propellant formulation

1-1

was an 88 solids formulation of the following composition 63 AN10 AP15 Al12 HTPB binder

The main conclusion drawn from the results of this five-month feasibility study was that with the necessary time and funds the develshyopment of an alternate propellant system for the Shuttle SRM based largely on ammonium nitrate as the oxidizer was feasible The fifth propellant described above was selected as a baseline candidate system and served as the basis for establishing the goals and criteria for a Phase I follow-on effort to this feasibility study

The concept for the utilization of the alternate propellant was a dual propellant solid rocket motor -The Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor would be manufactured containing the alternate low-HCl propellant first as an outer layer of propellant followed by an inner layer of the current PBAN propellant modified to the new burning rate requirement During a Shuttle vehicle launch the baseline PBAN propellant would burn for the first phase of Shuttle Booster operation At an altitude of approxshyimately 1981 km (65000 ft) the PBAN propellant would be expended and the burning transitioned into the low-HCl (less than 3 by weight of the exhaust products) alternate propellant The feasibility of a satisshyfactory transition from a propellant with an all-ammonium perchlorate oxidizer to one consisting primarily of ammonium nitrate oxidizer was also demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by successfully manufacshyturing and test firing a dual propellant BATES motor charge

1-2

SECTION II

SUMMARY

This summary is a general over-view of the Alternate Propellant Program A more detailed summary of each respective area of effort is included in the main body of this report The primary objective of the program was to develop a candidate alternate propellant for the Shuttle SRM boosters which would eliminate or minimize the HCl in the exhaust from the solid propellant boosters during operations above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude A set of program constraints was defined to serve as guidelines for the Phase I program effort Among the constraints was the requirements of a Class 2 hazards classification for any candidate propellant The detailed constraints have been outlined in the foregoing pages Along with these program guidelines specific goals were estabshylished that were as follows

(1) Propellant burning rate = 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) Propellant pressure exponent of the burning rate lt 042

(3) Vacuum delivered specific impulse gt 2402 N-skg (245 s) at an expansion ratio of 716

(4) Matched burning rates of the alternate propellant and the baseline PBAN propellant system at 400 Ncm2 (580 psia)

(5) HCl content of the propellant exhaust lt 3

Goal (4) also introduced the requirement of modifying the burning rate of the existing Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a burning rate requirement consistent with the foregoing goals for the alternate proshypellant The burning rate requirement for the modified Shuttle baseline propellant PBAN propellant was established to be 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) chamber pressure

Three basic propellant systems were defined as candidate systems to be developed within these constraints and guidelines The three systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

Based on the results from the Phase 0 program that preceded this Phase I program it was established that the aluminum content would be held constant at 15 wt in all formulations Also the AP content of the No 1 and No 3 system was to be 10 A status summary of each of the three alternate propellant systems and the modified PBAN Shuttle baseline propellant follows

2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPAlHTPB

This propellant system contains 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) and 15 aluminum powder The development has progressed through the static testing of 32-kg (70-1b) propellant charges in the BATES motor static testing being limited to sea level conditions A vacuum delivered Isp at an expansion ratio eof 70 corrected from the sea level data of 2281 N-skg (2326 s) has been demonstrated This measured value of Is is equivalent to 888 of the theoretical value at the test condiions A burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) of 0546 cms (0215 ins) with a pressure exponent of the burning rate of 0278 has also been demonstrated with BATES motor firings As can be seen the Isp and burning rate goals have not been attained whereas the pressure exponent goal has been exceeded by a considerable margin It is doubtful at this point whether the Isp or the burning rate goals can be achieved with this basic system within the present program conshystraints One way of achieving the ballistic goals would be to increase the AP content of this propellant To do so however would increase the HC content of the exhaust above that of the current exhaust conshystraint of not more than 3 wt of HC1

In order to meet the specific impulse and burning rate goals a propellant formulation containing 20 wt of AP was developed and tested first in 45-kg (10-1b) motors followed by two 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings The specific impulse goal of 2402 N-hkg (245 s) was attained with this propellant The burning rate at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) exceeded the 089-cms (035-ins) goal A burning rate of 097 cms (038 ins) was measured The pressure exponent measure was 048 which is higher than the goal However it is believed that this pressure exponent can be reduced The HC1 content in the exhaust at an expansion ratio of 716 is calculated to be 6 wt This 6 HC1 still represents an 80 reduction in the HC1 content from that of the baseline PBAN propellant system The-hazards classification of the ANAPA1HTPB system is Class 2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXA1HTPB

This system contains 15 aluminum also but no AP Due to a cutback in projected program funds however thedecision was made to discontinue the development of this system This decision was made very early in the development phase of this propellant and therefore no useful ballistic data is available at this time

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB

Of the three alternate propellant systems initially planned for development this system is the best candidate to date for meeting all the program goals Theoretical calculations showed that the maximum specific impulse for this propellant system was in the range of 170 to 175 HMX (Table 3-2) Therefore this system with three levels of HMX was developed scaled up to 113-kg (250-1b) mixes and loaded and test fired in 45-kg (10-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b)

2-2

BATES motor firing Of the three levels of HMX evaluated in motor firing the highest ISD was measured with the formulation containing 15 wt HMX showing that the experimental optimum HMX level- is somewhat less than 17 wt for this system The 15 and 17 wt HMX formulations were demonstrated to be Class 2 whereas the 175 wt HMX propellant was borderline Class 7

Preliminary results from Crawford Bomb burning rates showed a burning rate of 0950 cms (0374 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) for the 17 wt HMX formulation Time did not permit verifying this burning rate in motor tests prior to committing to the scale-up and loading of the 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors However indications -were that the 089-cms (035-ins) burning rate would be achieved in motor tests with 3 ballistic modifier in the formulation -- a cutback from the 4 in the other two HMX formulations In the interest of time a reduction in the ballistic modifier (a mixed burning rate catalyst) of 1 was made in the scale-up propellant batch from which the BATES motors were loaded Unfortunately this was too large a reduction in modifier and test results from firing the BATES motors showed a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) for the 17 wt HMX formulation (ANH-33)

The formulations of the five candidate alternate propellants and the modified PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 2-1 Table 2-2 lists the theoretical ballistic properties of the six propelshylants and also the HCi and A1203 (particulates) contents Table 2-3 summarizes the measured performance values as determined by BATES motor firings The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions with nozzle expansion ratios of 716 The measured sea level values were then corrected to vacuum values by the following equation

PeAe I vac ms =-I5 pact ms

D SYSTEM NO i MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE

The work statement of this Alternate Propqllant Program also called for modifying the current Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) while not changing the major ballistic properties such as I__ of the system This effort has been completed and the 081-cms (032-ins) burning rate met and demonstrated in motor firings The desired modification was accomplished by removing the iron oxide burningshyrate catalysts (Fe203 ) and adjusting the particle size blend of the oxidizer The burning-rate equation for this modified baseline is r = 00668 Pc0 228

A detailed discussion of the three candiate alternate propellant systems as well as the total program effort follows

2-3

Ingredients

Solids

AN

AP

HMX (Class E)

Al

Fe203

AD

CU-0202 P

Binder

HTPBe

PBANd

Table 2-1 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

TP-H1148a AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

86 88 88 88 88 88

-- 5900 5100 44o0 4300 4150

6960 1000 2000 1000 1000 1000

-- -- -- 1500 1700 1750

1600 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

040 b -- -- -- -shy

-- 200 -- 200 100 200

-- 200 200 200 200 200

-- 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

1400 -- -- -shy

aCurrent Shuttle baseline propellant also to be adjusted

bTo be adjusted

CCured with a diisocyanate (IPDI)

dCured with an epoxy (Der-331)

Table 2-2 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Parameter TP-H1148 AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Tf K 3471 2695 2845 2748 2765 2756

Te K

C ms (fts)

Isp0 N-skg (s)

2327

1371 (5155)

25723 (2623)

1563

1481 (4860)

24203 (2468)

1678

1568 (4949)

24624 (2511)

1570

1505 (4937)

24507 (2499)

1575

1513 (4965)

24634 (2512)

1571

1509 (4950)

24556 (2504)

U Is vac (a E 716)N-skg (s)

27135 (2767)

25684 (2619)

26115 (2663)

26007 (2652)

26144 (2666)

26066 (2658)

HC in exhaust 209 303 61 303 303 303

A1203 in exhaust 302 283 283 283 283 28

Table 2-3 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Ballistic Property

Program Goal

AN-25

Candidate Propellant Test Resultsa

AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

C ms (fts) - 1432 1460 1450 1431 1415

(4700) (4791) (4759) (4694) (4643)

C efficiency - 953 972 962 945 945

Isp vac at E = 716 N-skg (s)

_gt2403 (245)

22849 (2330)

24026 (2450)

23752 (2422)

23183 (2364)

23173 (2363)

Isp efficiency 888 923 912 887 8901

Burning rate cms at 690 Ncm2 (ins at 1000 psia)

gt_089 (035)

053 (021)

097 (0 38 )b

079 (031)

081 (032)

074 (029)

Pressure exponent n lt042 028 048 031 037 031

Hazard

classification 2 2 2 2 2 7 (marginal)

aTest data from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings at PC 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

bData point based on 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

SECTION III

PHASE I PROGRAM

A OBJECTIVE

The program objective of the Phase I program the results of which are documented in this report was to develop an alternate propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster motors which would eliminate or minimize the H1 in the exhaust from the motors

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS

The Phase I development effort was conducted within some very specific constraints These program constraints were

(1) Minimize the design impact on the present solid booster

(2) Eliminate or minimize Llt 3) the HC1 release from the booster motors during operation above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude

(3) Any candidate alternate propellant must confori to a Class 2 hazards classification

(4) The program was to be conducted within government as a contingency

(5) The payload schedule and cost impact of the Phase I effort on the Shuttle project were to be assessed concurrently

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS

Three basic pandidate propellant systems were selected for consideration in this development program These propellant systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

In addition to the above three completely new propellant systems a modification of the current baseline PBAN propellant was to be made This modification consisted of adjusting the burning rate of the PBAN propellant to a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) [The baseline PBAN propellant burning rate was approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)]

3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA

As has been stated the criteria for the Phase I program effort was established as a result of the Phase 0 feasibility study The scope of effort and propellant performance goals thus established were as follows

(1) Initiate the development of three basic candidate alternate propellant systems

(2) Modify the current Shuttle baseline PHAN propellant to meet

the new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins)

(3) The propellant performance goals were

(a) Burning rate = 689 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(b) Pressure exponent lt 042

(c) Delivered vacuum specific impulse at an expansion ratio of 716 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(d) Theburning rates of the candidate alternate propellants and the Shuttle baseline PBAN propellant should be matched at a pressure of 400 Ncm 2 (580 psia)

(e) HCI in the exhaust _ 3

(4) The development program was to include in addition to - the above

(a) Processing studies

(b) Physical property studies

(c) ropellant aging studies

(d) Propellant hazards classification testing

(e) Propellant performance testing

(f) Investigation of the compatibility between the alternate propellant and the current baseline PBAN propellant and between the alternate propellant and the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) insulation

E PROGRAM APPROACH

The following outline details the general approach taken in the investigation of the various aspects of this program

3-2

1 Theoretical Studies

() Maximize delivered specific impulse at 88 solids

(a) Aluminum content

(b) HMX content

(c) High-energy plasticizer content (TMETN)

2 Burning Rate Studies 089 cms (035 ins) Goal

(1) Particle size blend of oxidizer

(2) Investigate and compare catalyst type and concentration

(a) Fe203

(b) Ferrocene

(c) Milori blue

(d) CU-0202 P shy

(e) Inert plasticizer level (DOA)

(f) High-energy plasticizer (TMETN)

(g) HMX

(h) Zirconium powder

(i) Other

Burning rates to be determined via Crawford Bomb strand burning and 5 x 6 motor tests

3 Physical Property Studies

(1) Binder stoichiometry

(2) Plasticizer level and type

(a) Free plasticizer

(b) Internal plasticizer (chemically bonded)

(3) Degree of crosslinking

(4) Cure time and temperature

3-3

Evaluate properties Tensile strength

Elongation

Modulus

Hardness

Density

4 Processing Studies

(1) Process variables

(a) Mixer speeds

(b) Mix duration

(c) Ingredient addition sequence

(d) Other

5 Compatibility Studies

(1) PBAN propellant to alternate propellant bond

(a) As cured surfaces

(b) Machined surfaces

(2) Alternate propellant to insulation bond

6 Safety Hazard Tests

(I) Card gap

(2) Impact

(3) Auto-ignition shy

(4) Blast~ng cap

(5) Friction sensitivity

(6) Spark sensitivity

3-4

7 Aging Studies

(1) Propellant aging-physical properties

(a) Ambient temperature

(2) Propellant-propellant bond

(a) Ambient temperature

8 Motor Testing

(1) 5 x 6 motors - pressure only

(2) BATES motors - pressure and thrust

9 Shuttle Baseiine Propellant Modification

Adjust burning rate to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

F NOS PARTICIPATION

The Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head Maryland wLs funded by JPL to participate in certain aspects of the Alternate Propellant Program This funding of the NOS was a relatively low level of funding and designed to support the program through the investigation of certain very specific tasks The general areas of the NOS participation were

(1) Investigation of the solubility of the high-energy plasticizer TMETN in (a) R-45 HTPB polymer and (b) R-45 HTPB polymerDOA plasticizer

(2) Determine the limits of TMETN for a Class 2 propellant in an (a) all AN propellant system (b) ANAP system and (c) ANAPHMX system

(3) Investigation of the limits of HMX Ior a Class 2 inert binder propellent

(4) Hazards testing of candidate propellant formulations

(5) Investigation of HMX and AP particle size ef~eots and ballistic modifier effects on candidate propellant ballistics

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE

The Phase I effort of the Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program began April 1 1975 as an 18-month program The program schedule was later revised and lengthened to a 30-month program Much later in the program (April 1976) following several revisions to the program

3-5

schedule the planned scope of effort was reduced and the schedule cut to

conclude the program on June 30 1976 This reduction in scope and schedule

time became necessary due to a cut in the anticipated program funds

H DISCUSSION

Theoretical Studies

As has been discussed in the introduction to this report the Phase 0 feasibility study (Ref 1) results established the basis for

the Phase I effort Theoretical studies had been conducted during the Phase 0 work analyzing the effects of solids loading oxidizer ratios

binder composition etc on the thermoballistic properties of the proshy

pellant types under consideration Therefore at the start of the Phase I

program effort the guidelines for formulating the candidate alternate propellants to be developed were fairly well defined Consequently the

theoretical studies reported here involved only formulations with certain

constant parameters such as 88 total solids 15 aluminum and a binder based on plasticized HTPB

Table 3-1 gives summary tabulations of the primary thermoballistic properties of a number of candidate formulations containing AN AP and

HMX as oxidizers and the binder plasticized with the high-energy plasticizer

TMETN Iron oxide at the 1 level was included as a burning rate modifier The relevant Shuttle SRM baseline PBAN propellant properties are also shown in the table for reference As can be seen the formulation containing 25 HMX 10 AP and 25 TMETN plasticizer in the binder (12 HTPB binder) matches within 49 N-skg (05-s) specific impulse to that of the Shuttle baseline propellant That formulation however would be a Class 7 proshy

pellant and therefore could not be considered as a candidate

Table 3A2 shows the effects of varying the AP content the HMX conshy

tent and the type and content of the burning rate modifiers A combination

of ammonium dichromate (AD) and copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was selected

as the primary burning rate modifiers for this work Approximately two seconds of impulse difference is calculated for equal amounts of Fe203 and mixed AD and CU-0202 P (4 Fe203 versus 2 AD and 2 CU-0202 P) The calculations also show that for the 88 total solids system with 15 aluminum and 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) tpe theoretical optimum amount of HMX for maximum impulse is in the range of 17 to 175 The

experimental optimum HMX level for maximum delivered IsD however

appears to be something less than 17 wt This is eviaenced by the results from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests of propellants containing 150 170 and 175 HMX The measured ballistics of these formulations

are tabulated in Table 2-3 in the summary section of this report As will be seen in Table 2-3 the highest measured Isp with an HMX formulation

was with FormulationNumber ANH-12 which contains 150 HMX

These theoretical calculations referred to above were made using

a JPL computer program based on the minimization of free energy to

calculate both the equilibrium and frozen flow thermoballistic properties

of chemical compositions

3-6

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN

Formulationa Ballistics

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

AN AP HIX Al

TMETN in

Binder Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P T0 K C

ms (fts)

T (Sea Lcve Optimum) N-skg (s)

Vac 1 (c = 7)

N-skg (a)

Shuttle PBAN Baseline Propellantb(Density 17714 gcm 3 00640 lbin3) 3515 1578 (5176) 25752 (2626) 27136 k2767)

62 10 0 15 0 1 2825 1503 (4931) 24536 (2502) 25966 (2648)

62 10 0 15 10 1 2902 1511 (4956) 24674 (2516) 26095 (2661)

62 10 0 15 20 1 2977 1518 (4980) 24791 (2528) 26213 (2673)

62 10 0 15 25 1 2982 1521 (4991) 24850 (2534) 26272 (2679)

62 0 10 15 20 1 2910 1526 (5005) 24870 (2536) 26321 (2684)

52 0 20 15 20 1 2973 1546 (5072) 25174 (2567) 26645 (2717)

47 0 25 15 20 1 3005 1557 (5108) 25321 (2582) 26900 (2743)

62 0 10 15 25 1 2916 1529 (5016) 24929 (2542) 26380 (2690)

52 0 20 15 25 1 2978 1550 (5084) 25233 (257 ) 26704 (2723)

47 0 25 15 25 1 3010 1561 (5120) 25380 (2588) 26860 (2739)

52 10 10 15 10 1 2964 1532 (5028) 24968 (2546) 26419 (2694)

42 10 20 15 10 1 3027 1554 (5100) 25272 (2577) 26753 (2728)

37 10 25 15 10 1 3658 1565 (5136) 25419 (2592) 26909 (2744)

52 10 10 15 20 1 3039 1540 (5052) 25095 (2559) 26519 (2706)

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN (Continuation 1)

Formulationa Ballistics -

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier TMETN Is (Sea Vac L

in C Level Optimum) (E = 7 AN AP HMX Al Binder Fe203 AD CU-0202 P Tc K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

42 10 20 15 20 1 3102 1562 (5124) 25399 (2590) 26870 (2740)

37 10 25 15 20 1 3134 1573 (5160) 25546 (2605) 27037 (2757)

52 10 10 15 25 1 3044 1543 (5063) 25154 (2565) 26596 (2712)

42 10 20 15 25 1 3107 1565 (5135) 25448 (2595) 26929 (2746)

37 10 25 15 25 1 3138 1576 (5171) 25595 (2610) 27086 (2762)

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

bThe Shuttle baseline propellant has 16 Al 86$ total solids

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN

Formulation ballistics

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids)

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Pc = 690 Ncm

2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Moaifier

DensitygcM3

(lbin3 ) AN AP HMX Al

PropellantFormulation

No Fe2 0q AD CU-0202 P To K

C

Ms (fts)

Is (SeaLevel Optimum)

N-skg (s)

Vac ISp(E 7)

N-skg (s)

16634 (00601) 62 10 - 15 1 2728 1500 (4920) 24468 (2495) 25950 (2647)

0 16717 (00604) 61 10 - 15 2 2716 1490 (4887) 24320 (2480) 25801 (2631)

16800 (00607) 56 15 - 15 2 2778 1497 (4913) 24438 (2492) 25929 (2644)

16911 (00611) 51 20 - 15 2 2839 1505 (4938) -24566 (2505) 26046 (2656)

16994 (00614) 46 25 - 15 2 2904 1512 (4962) 24674 (2516) 26164 (2668)

17105 (00618) 41 30 - 15 2 2969 1519 (4985) 24791 (252b) 26282 (2680)

17188 (00621) 36 35 - 15 2 3032 1526 (5007) 24899 (2539) 24390 (2691)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 4 2692 1469 (4820) 24016 (2449) 25478 (2598)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 (AN-25) - 2 2 2695 1481 (4860) 24203 (2468) 25684 (2619)

16745 (0n605) 51 20 - 15 - 2 2841 1513 (4965) 24693 (2518) 26194 (26741)

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 1)

Pl1si~sFormulitiona

Theoreticl Equilibrium Flow Calculations = Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant IS (Sea Vac I gcm3 Formulation C Love Optimum) (c = 7) (lbin 3 ) AN PP HmX Pi No Fe20q AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg ()

16911 (00611) 51 20 15 (AN-71) 2 2845 1508 (4949) 24624 (2511) 26115 (266-)

16828 (00608) 51 20 15 1 1 2841 1511 (4957) 24654 (2514) 26145 (2666)

17160 (00620) 44 10 15 15 4 2748 1492 (4895) 24320 (2480) 25811 (2632)

17216 (00622) 42 10 17 15 4 2756 1495 (4906) 24360 (2484) 25850 (263b)

- ) 415 10 175 15 4 2581 1500 (4921) 25850 (2636)

) 40 10 190 15 4 2794 1495 (4906) 257b2 (2629)

39 10 200 15 4 2776 1490 (4888) 25723 (2623)

17049 (00616) 44 10 15 15 (ANH-12) - 2 2 2748 1504 (4937) 24507 (2499) 2007 (2652)

17077 (00617) 42 10 17 15 2 2 2754 1508 (4947) 24546 (2503) 26056 (2657)

17049 (00616) 4 10 17 15 (ANH-33) 1 2 2765 1513 (4965) 24634 (2512) 26145 (2666)

L

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 2)

BallisticsFormulations

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant is (Sea Vac Is gcm3 Formulation C Level Optimum) M (ibin3 ) AN AP HMX Al No Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

16828 (00608) 44 10 17 15 - - 2779 1525 (5005) 24781 (2527) 26311 (2683)

16994 (00614) 44 10 17 15 - 2 2784 1518 (4981) 24723 (2521) 26243 (2676)

16911 (00611) 44 10 17 15 - 1 1 2778 1522 (4994) 24752 (2524) 26272 (2679)

17077 1509 (4950) 24556 (2504) 26066 (2658)(00617) 415 10 175 15 (ANH-18) - 2 2 2757

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

2 Exhaust Products

The exhaust compositions of the five candidate propellants listed in Table 2-I in the report summary and that of the Shuttle PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 3-3 The exhaust species are shown as weight percent of the total exhaust and the exhaust composition is that at the exit plane of the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 716 calculated as the equilibrium composition

3 Combustion and Burning Rate

Two problems which were anticipated and confirmed as problems early in the Phase 0 program were low combustion efficiency and low burning rates of the aluminized ammonium nitrate propellant These subjects are discussed individually in the sections covering the different propellant systems However a few brief general comments will be made here

It was demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by way of 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings that a few percent of AP was essential in the ammonium nitrate propellants in order to effect satisfactory combustion of aluminum An 88 solids 15 Al ammonium nitrate formulation containing no AP was test fired in several 227-kg (5-1b) test motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors In each case large amounts of aluminum slag remained in the motors after firing Molten aluminum could be seen being ejected through the nozzle during the test firings Greatly improved combustion resulted from incorporating 5 AP in the formulation The incorporation of 10 AP resulted in virtually zero slag remaining in the motor Therefore 10 AP was selected as a standard for this Alternate Propellant Program The three photographs of BATES motor tests (Figs 3-1 to 3-3 containing 0 5 and 10 AP respectively in the formulations) show rather dramatically the effect of AP on the combustion The glowing streams in the 0 and 5 AP firings (greatly reduced in the 5 AP test however) are produced by molten aluminum

A second technique investigated as a combustion improvement techshynique was the incorporation of zirconium metal powder into the propellant The basis for this idea was due to the fact that zirconium powder has a much lower ignition temperature than that of aluminum powder and has a relatively high heat of combustion The idea was to take advantage of this lower ignition temperature of zirconium powder to facilitate the ignition and burning of the aluminum by igniting and burning and thereby supplying sufficient added heat to the system to more effectively ignite and burn the aluminum This technique however did not demonstrate any real improvement in the measured performance but rather a decrease and was therefore not investigated beyond the initial BATES motor test firings

3-12

Table 3-3 Propellant Exhaust Comsition

Propellant PBAN AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Solids 86 88 88 88 88 88 AP 6960 10 20 10 10 10 HMX - - - 15 17 175

Tel K 2327 1563 1678 1570 1575 1571

MoI Wt of Products 2756 2309 2360 2285 2275 2281

Speciesa wt

AlCl 00094 - - - -AIC10 00086 - - - shy

-A1C12 00098 - - -

AICI3 00053 - - - shy-AlHO2 00012 - - -

Cl 02961 - 00007 - -

CO 232928 189953 191619 256367 264700 267944 39486 61302 58679 46105 44899 42773CO2

Cr203(L) - 10020 02090 10020 06050 10020 Cu - 00038 00184 00044 00044 00044 CuC(L) - 14543 11840 14513 14475 14513 CUM - 00891 04188 00901 00940 00901

-Fe 00134 - - -

FeC12 05998 00621 00621 00596 00583 00583 H 00191 00001 00002 00001 00001 00001 H2 18804 29663 27301 32744 32941 33221

aCl 209284 30346 60149 30357 30346 30357 HO 00321 - 00002 - -

H20 101499 154534 157204 95971 91721 86539 85862 221739 203436 225998 228954 226707N2

NH3 - 00905 00003 00005 00005 00005 NO 00018 05780 - - shy

0 00005 shy02 00003 - - shy

A1203(C) 302097 283418 283418 283418 283418 283418

aConcentrations less than 1 x I0-5 moles100 g exhaust are omitted

L = liquid C = crystalline

3-13

ft

iI

Figure 3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

Imm

Figure 3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5$ AP in ANAPA1HTPB

go

Figure 3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

A third technique investigated was that of using a chromate-coated aluminum powder in place of the standard aluminum powder This techniquealso failed to produce increased combustion efficiency of the aluminum in the propellant

Specific burning rate subjects are discussed in the discussions of the different propellant systems however some general comments will be made here As can be seen in Table 3-2 the proper selection of a burning rate catalyst must be based on more than burning-rate considerations when a rigorous effort is made to maximize specific impulse As can be seen a significant difference is calculated for the theoretical Isp between incorporating the different burning rate modifiers at the same concentration Also the modifier used can have a strong effect on the physical properties of the propellant

4 Physical Properties

This effect of specific ingredients on the physical properties of an ammonium nitrate system arises from the fact that chemical reactions other than the normal curing reactions between the prepolymer and the curing agent enter into the overall curing reactions In most compositepropellant systems the physical properties are determined largely -in addition to binder type and solids loading by the degree of crosslinkingand completeness of reactions with available cure site6 In the ammonium nitrate system however it appears that free protons produced in the system react with the double bond in the prepolymer (HTPH) backbone causing crosslinks at these sites Ammonium dichromate appears to contribute in a greater way to this crosslinking at the double bonds than some of the other burning-rate modifiers investigated On the other hand the AD subtracts less from the calculated Isp The formulating and development of an AN system therefore is complicated by these considerations The physical property problems are greatly complicated Nonconventional techniques must be found and employed in the physical property considerations in order to develop satisfactory control of adequate physical properties

5 High-Energy Plasticizer Studies

One of the approaches investigated on the program was use of high-energy plasticizers td achieve higher delivered specific impulse propellants A review of available nitrate ester plasticizers indicated that TMETN (111-trimethylolethane trinitrate) was the most promising candidate This selection was made on the basis of overall considerations of compatibility performance cost and availability Theoretical performance calculations on some typical propellant formulations with 20 wt TMETN are shown in Table 3-4

Propellant development work on this effort was done by NOS (NavalOrdnance Station Indian Head Md) Two basic formulations were inshyvestigated one with no ammonium perchlorate and one with 5 wt ammonium perchlorate A polyester (R-18) binder was selected and initial development work was done at the 82 wt solids level with 1200 wt TMETN Small

3-17

Table 3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations

Formulation 1-A

Ammonium nitrate 360 Aluminum 180 R-18 60 HMX 100 TMETN 200 Ammonium perchlorate 100

1000

Density gcm3 17300 (lbin3 ) (00625)

Flame temperature 34314 K (OF) (5723)

Vacuum specific 27115 impulse N-skg (s) (2765) E = 716

Pc 483 Ncm2

(700 psi)

Weight percent 278 HC1 in exhaust

1-B

310 180 60 100 200 150

1000

17411 (00629)

3481 (5806)

27155 (2769)

417

1-C 1-D

410 410 180 180 60 60 50 -

200 200 100 150

1000 1000

17217 17244 (00622) (00623)

3410 3430 (5678) (5714)

26988 26880 (2752) (2741)

278 416

3-18

mixes were made to check ingredient compatibility and propellant laboratorysafety properties Results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-5 along with the formulations These tests indicated that the ingredients were compatible and safety properties were adequate The two formulations were then scaled up into larger batches and card gap samples were loaded and tested Both formulations were uncastable so that the card gapsamples had to be hand packed The card gap test results are shown in Table 3-5 and suggest both formulations meet the card gap requirementsfor Class 2 propellant (lt 70 cards) However these results may be biased to give lower card gap sensitivity because of voids in the samples

Four additional formulations were then evaluated at the reduced solids level of 74 wt to improve propellant castability The polyester(R-18) binder system was used and TMETN level was held constant at 20 wt The variations made with these four formulations were variations in the levels of HMX AP and AN All the formulations were eastable and card gap samples were prepared and tested on each The details of the formulations and card gap test results are summarized in Table 3-6 General conclusion from this work was that for this propellant systemwith 20 wt TMETN a maximum level of 5 to 10 wt HMX can be used and meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

Work with the polyester (R-18) binder system was terminated and shifted to the HTPB (R-45) binder system when the early experimentalwork indicated that program goals would probably not be achieved with the polyester (R-18) Initial tests by NOS showed the solubility of TMETN (also referred to as MTN) in R-45 at 210 C (700F) was less than 1 wt They then conducted cosolubility studies with other plasticizersComplete details of these studies are shown in Appendix A Summary conclusions from this effort are as follows

(1) R-18 and adiponitrile are not soluble in R-45M

(2) DOA is more effective as a coplasticizer than TP90B and PPG-1225

(3) Maximum theoretical performance gains possible by replaceshyment of DOA with TMETN within solubility limits are about 176 N-skg (18-s) impulse and 0028 gcm 3 (O001 lbin 3 ) density

A decision was made to terminate further work with TMETN at this point in the program Primary reason for the decision was that the small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justifythe potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradation

6 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrates

An evaluation of available ammonium nitrate (AN) types was made to provide a basis for selection of the AN in development of the propellant formulations Ammonium nitrate is the major oxidizer used in all

3-19

Table 3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations with TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids)

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder TMETN Aluminum HMX Ammonium perchlorate Ammonium nitrate

Initial card gap tests

0 Cards 35 Cards 50 Cards

70 Cards

Laboratory safety tests

Impact mm (3 consecutive positive values 5-kg weight)

Sliding friction kg (ib) 24 ms (8 fts)

Electrostatic discharge- J

(5000 V)

NOS SCC-74-69 NOS SCC-74-074

600 600 1200 1200 1800 1800 2000 1000 - 500

4400 4900

10000 10000

-pos

pos pos pos neg neg

150 -125 150 200

gt-435 (gt_960) 435 ( 960) A35 (gt_960)

gt435 (gt960)

2125 125 gt125 L125

3-20

Table 3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids)

Formulation No NOS Mod I NOS Mod II NOS 1C NOS ID

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder -600 600 600 600 TMETN 2000 2000 2000 2000 Aluminum 1800 1800 1800 1800 HMX 2000 2000 -500 Ammonium perchlorate - 500 1000 1500 Ammonium nitrate 3600 3100 4100 4100

10000 10000 IbO00 10000

No 8 Blasting Cap neg neg -

Test

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards -shy pos 40 Cards pos neg

(42 cards) 50 Cards pos pos neg 60 Cards neg 65 Cards pos 70 Cards pos neg neg 75 Cards pos -

80 Cards pos - -

85 Cards - Ipos and I neg - -

90 Cards 2 pos - -

100 Cards pos I pos and I neg - -

112 Cards pos - -

120 Cards pos neg - -

121 Cards 1 pos and 2 neg - -

123 Cards neg - - -

125 Cards neg 150 Cards neg

3-21

three of the basic alternate propellants ANAPAlHTPB ANHMXAlHTBP

and ANHMXAPAlHTPB

Some of the problems associated with making propellants with AN are

(1) Low true density of AN (1725 gcm3 ) which limits solids loading for processable propellants

(2) Large size and hollowness of unground as-received prills

(3) Hygroscopicity of AN and particle agglomeration

(4) Slow burning rates

(5) Low specific impulse

(6) Volumetric changes with crystal phase changes

The following three types of AN were selected for evaluation

(1) Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated

(2) U S Agri-Chemicals industrial with anti-caking agent

(3) Monsanto industrial E-2 phase stabilized

These three were selected because they are generally representative of what is currently available from industry Table 3-7 compares the as-received properties of the three AN types Table 3-8 compares some of the processing characteristics of the three AN types

The Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated has the advantage of having no additives that generally tend to reduce propellant specific impulse However this AN has a soft prill that breaks readily and is very hygroscopic Both the unground and ground materials agglomerate severely even in controlled environments These difficulties in controlling particle-size distribution with this type AN pose real problems in achieving and reproducing maximum specific impulse and burning rate in processable propellants Cost of this type AN is higher than the other two types because it is a specialty product

The U S Agri-Chemicals industrial AN has a 043 to 077 wt coating of anticaking agent on the prills The coating consists of 90 talc and 10 Petro-Ag It keeps the material free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture In addition it makes a harder prill which does not break readily Good control of particle-size distribution is possible with this type of AN Consequently processable propellants are achievable with reproducible burning rates and delivered specific impulse

3-22

Oc Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received PropertiesTable 3-7

Vendor

ltC7

Type

Appearance

Total nitrogen

Approx assay

Moisture (when manufactured)

to Additive

Screen size (US Sieve Series)

Loose bulk density gcm3

3)(lbft

Prill Density gcm3

Approx cost kg (lb)

aphase stabilized

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticakang Agent)

White prills

None

254 (115)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

industrial (Coated with Anticaking Agent)

White free-flowing spheres

(prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

025 wt min

043 to 077 wt $ coating bagent

00 wt max retained on No 6 50 wt $ max through No 6 and on a No 8 940 wt max through No 6 and on No 20 10 wt max through No 20

154

154 (7 0 )d

Monsanto Agricultural Products Co

inoustrial E-2

Pearly white free-flowing

spheres (prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

05 wt min

04 to 06 wt E-2 additive c

10 wt max retained on No 6 100 wt through No 14

09611 (60)

161

a157 (71

b90 tale and 10 petroleum agent eMgo according to US Patent 3030179

taxesdBulk costs - carload quantities typically 54431-kg (60-ton) minimum Does not include freight or

Table 3-8

Property

Handling characteristics to unground

Particle size after tumble drying unground

Grinding characteristics particle size after coarse grinding in Raymond hammer mill with 4000-rpm hammer speed 160-rpm feed speed 032-cm (18-in) screen

Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticaking Agent)

Soft prill breaks easily Very hygroscopic and agglom-

erates severely

104 to 1000 pm

480 pm (avg)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

Industrial (Coated with Anttcaking Agent)

Fairly hard prill does not break readily Remains free

flowing with reasonable pro-tection from moisture

840 to 3360 pm

2200 pm (avg)

140 um (avg)

Monsanto AgraculLural Products Co

Industrial E-2 (Phase-Stabilized)

Very hard and dense prill does not bread readily

Remains free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture

1410 to 3360 pm

2000 pm (avg)

2bO pm (avg)

The Monsanto industrial E-2 phase-stabilized AN has 04-to 06 wt E-2 additive This material is MgO which pbase stabilizes-the ammonium nitrate according to U S Patent 3030179 (assigned to Monsanto Company) Figure 3-4 shows the specific volume of Monsanto E-2 AN and of AN that has not been phase stabilized versus temperature The solid line is for the Monsanto E-2 AN and the dotted line is for the AN that has not been phase stabilized Note that the volumetric changes associated with Phase III have been eliminated in the phase-stabilizedMonsanto E-2 AN Comparing Monsanto E-2 AN with the other types inTable 3-7 and 3-8 the following conclusions can be made

(1) Monsanto E-2 AN has a higher prill density than U S Agri-Chemicals AN (161 gcm3 versus 154 gcm3 )

(2) Because Monsanto E-2 is a very hard anddense prill normal handling and tumble drying does not significantly break prills Particle-size distribution remains in the range of 1410 to 3360 pm with an average size of about 2000 m

(3) Coarse grinds of Monsanto E-2 AN have an average particle size of about 280 pm which is in the size range (200 to 400 pm) for better fit with the other solids

(4) The Monsanto E-2 AN remains free flowing in both the ungroundand ground states with reasonable protection from moisture

(5) Cost of the Monsanto E-2 AN in large bulk quantities is 157 1kg (71 [lb) which is comparable to other AN types which are not phase stabilized

ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant batches have been made with all three of the AN types discussed above In general results were as follows

(1) The propellant made with Monsanto E-2 AN had lower endshyof-mix viscosities and longer casting lives than the proshypellant made with the other two types of AN

(2) Burning rates with the Monsanto E-2 AN were either comparable or slightly faster

Based on these results Monsanto E-2 AN was selected as the preferred AN type for the following reasons

(1) It is easily processed with good particle-size control It remains free flowing in both the unground and ground states with reasonable protection from moisture The prill does not readily break with normal handling or tumble drying

(2) It has typically a 5 higher prill density This lowers propellant volumetric solids loading which improves castability

(3) This AN can be ground to more optimum size distributions for improved solids packing

3-25

065

063 063

1

- BOWDEN

MONSANTO E-2 -

I

PHASE ILr

E

uS 061 IIshy

0 -

CU 059

057

055

-100 -50

Figure 3-4

0 50 100

TEMPERATURE degC

Specific Volume of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature

150 200

3-26

(4) It does not have a talc anticaking coating which appears

to accelerate propellant viscosity buildup

(5) Phase stabilization minimizes volumetric changes with varying

temperature due to phase changes

(6) This AN gives comparable or slightly faster burning rates

(7) It has a comparable price to other AN types in large bulk

quantities

7 ANAPAlHTPB ( 3 Wt HC1 Exhaust)

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished

on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraint of lt 3 wt HCl in the propellant exhaust

This constraint is met by limiting the AP level in the formulation to

( 10 wt

a Burning Rate Studies Initial burning rate studies were

made to evaluate different ballistic modifier types and levels with

the basic 88 wt solids ANAPAlHTPB propellant The selection of

the ballistic modifiers was limited to those that were

(1) Commercially available

(2) Proved successful for use within rubber base propellants

(3) Non-migrating

(4) Reasonably priced

selectedAmmonium dichromate (NH4)2Cr207 at the 2 wt level was

as the primary ballistic modifier for the following reasons

(1) AN is the major oxidizer

(2) AD has been used successfully for years with AN propellants

Other ballistic modifiers were used in conjunction with the AD to enhance

burning rate and attempt to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms

(035 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) Table 3-9 shows the formulations evaluatedand the cured strand burning rates obtained

The propellant formulations were mixed as small (1000 to 1500 g)

batches using a 38-liter (1-gal) vertical Bramley mixer The propellant

was cast into RAM-225 released molds that formed individual propellant

strands and was then cured After cure the propellant strands were tested

in a conventional Crawford Bomb strand burner A subsequent study

discussed in the section on ANUNXAPAlHTPB propellant showed that

3-27

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Formulation wt Crawford Bomb Data

rb cms (ins)

Batch No

Total Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m)

Other Ballistic Modifier

Oxidizer Blend CoarseFine

At 345 Nem2

and 210C (500 psia and 700F)

At 690 Ncm2

and 210C (1000 psia and 700 F)

o

30

31 55

88 6o

59 57

10 15 2

2 2

Fe20Q

Fe203 Fe203

1

2 4

4555

442558 425575

0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0279 (0110)

0538 (0212)

0475 (0187)

0432 (0170)

32

33

49

34

60

59

57

59

2

2

2

2

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite Fe203

1

2

4

1 1

4555

442558

425575

442558

0462 (0182)

0564 (0222)

0472 (0186)

0493 (0194)

0627 (0247)

0759 (0299)

0671 (0264)

0737 (0290)estimated

50 57 2 Copper Chromite Fe203

2 2 425575 0511 (0201) 0699 (0275)

54 57 2 Copper Chromite FeF 3 (unground)

2 2 425575 0485 (0191) 0648 (0255)

35 6o 2 Milor Blue 1 4555 0399 (0157) 0625 (0246)

56 57 2 Milori Blue 4 425575 0371 (0146) 0528 (0208)

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

a Crawford Bomb Data

Formulation wt rb cms (ins)

At 3115 Ncm2 At 690 Ncm2

0 0and 21 C and 21 C

Batch Total Other Ballistic Oxidizer Blend (500 psia (1000 psia 0

No Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m) Modifier CoarseFine and 70 F) and 700 F)

W 36 88 60 10 15 2 Ferrocene 1 4555 0381 (0150) 0569 (0224)N)

42 60 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 1 4555 0429 (0169) 0594 (0234)

53 57 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 4 425575 0356 (0140) 0490 (0193)

41 60 2 Iron phthshyalocyanine 1$ 4555 0358 (0141) 0490 (0193)

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

the strand burning rates may have been biased to give faster rates by the RAM-225 release agent However the burning rate trends and ranking of the ballistic modifiers do not appear to be biased by the RAM-225

Figure 3-5 shows strand burning rates plotted at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) versus the second ballistic modifier level for the ballistic modifier systems evaluated General conclusions from the study were as follows

(1) The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) and 2 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) gave the fastest burn rate

(2) Increasing the combined level of burning rate modifiers to greater than 4wt of theformulatibn decreased the burn rate

Although the attritor-ground (I m) ferric fluoride (FeF 3) gave a faster burning rate than CU-0202 P at the 1 wt second ballistic modifier level FeF 3 was not selected because it would have contributed HF in the propellant exhaust A preliminary selection of the ballistic modifier system was made for subsequent work The system selected was 2 wt $ ground AD and 2 wt as-received CU-0202 P

Achievement of the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2

(035 ins at 1000 psia) had not been accomplished by simple manipulation of the ballistic modifier type and level Consequently propellant developshyment effort was continued toward this goal along the following approaches

(1) Finer particle size ballisticmodifiers

(2) Finer particle size AN

(3) Greater level of fine AN

(4) Finer particle size AP

(5) Use of potassium perchlorate

Two approaches were evaluated to reduce ballistic modifier particle sizes to sizes smaller than those achievable with a hammer mill They were dry ball milling and attritor grinding The dry ball milling approach was unsuccessful with AD and CU-0202 P because they packed into a hard cake Attritor grinding of AP and FeF 3 to particle sizes smaller than 1 m has been successfully demonstrated within the solid propellant industry This method uses an attritor mill to grind material suspended in Freon between zircoa beads Attritor grinds were successfully made with AD and CU-0202 P and the particle-size reductions accomplished are summarized in Table 3-10

3-30

1016 I1

STRAND BURN RATES POSSIBLY BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

040

EU

04 E

z 0762

FIRST BALLISTIC MODIFIER 200 wt GROUND AD

FeF3 GROUND TO I

030

K c

0 10

uIX FeF 3 (UNGROUND)

Z

0 58

IRONO PHTHALOCYANINE

MILORI BLUE

x FERROCENEFe 20 3

020 zS

ln

0254 I I 0 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SECOND BALLISTIC MODIFIER LEVEL wt

Figure 3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic

Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-31

Table 3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P

Screen Analysis Micromerograph Material 50 wt pt 50 wt pt

Particle Size pm Particle Size pm

AD

As received =575

Attritor ground (21 h) - 44

CU-0202 P

As received 21

Attritor ground (21 h) shy 17

Small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of the smaller ballistic modifier particle sizes on strand burning rates Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-11 General conclusions from this study are as follows

(1) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 1 wt FeF 3 fine ground AN and 9-gm AP reducing the FeF 3 particle size from a coarse as-received to attritor-ground 1 pm material increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2

(1000 psia) from 0594 to 0668 cms (0234 to 0263 ins) (-12)

(2) In an IDP-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P coarse ground AN and 63- AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm did not significantly change strand burning rate

(3) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (0208 to 0219 ins) ( 5)

(4) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (2208 to 0218 ins) (5)

3-32

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-l05 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized 40 IDP

plasticized

1200

-

1200

-

-

1200

-

1200

1200

-

1200

-

1200

-

Aluminum MD 105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground

72 pm Attritor ground

44 gm

200

-

200

-

200 -

200bull

200

-

200

-

-

200

Ferric fluoride As received Attritor ground 1 pm

100 -

-100

- -

- -

-

-

Copper chromite As received 21 pm

Attritor ground 17 pm

- 200

-

200

-

200

-

-

200

200

-

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine Ground Gulf

Oil Fine ground

Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

3150 -

2850

-

3150 -

2850

-

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 1000 9 [Lm

FEM ground 63 pm -

1000

-

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000 1000

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-33

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-105 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 690 Ncm 2 0429 0465 0422 0419 0424 0439 0437 (100 psia) (0169)(0183)(0166) (0165) (0167) (0173) (0172)

At 345 Ncm 2 0594 0668 0467 0475 0528 0556 0554 (500 psia) (0234)(0263)(0184) (0187) (0208) (0219) (0218)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 047 053 014 018 030 033 033

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

In summary reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burning rates for the selected ballistic modifier system

As discussed earlier particle-size control of the unground Gulf Oil AN was a problem because of breakage of the prills during drying and handling A partial approach to this problem was to screen the unground Gulf Oil AN into a selected size range after drying and handling Smallshyscale propellant batches (1000 to 1500 g) were made using Gulf Oil AN and strand burn rate tests were performed on these batches to evaluate

(1) The effect of screened +60 to -32 mesh (250 to 570 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(2) The effect of screened +32 to -16mesh (570 to 1190 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(3) The effect of varying the fraction of AN as fine ground on castability and burn rate

The fine ground AN was ground using a hammer mill with the following settings

9600 rpm hammer speed 80 rpm feed speed

0033-cm (0013-in) screen

3-34

Fisher sub-sieve average particle size for this material was typically 20 pm The fraction of AN as fine ground was limited to less than 55wt to keep propellant processable in the small scale batches (Larger batches typically have better castability) Table 3-12 and Fig 3-6 summarize test results General conclusions from these results were

(1) All batches had poor relative castability

(2) Using unscreened unground Gulf Oil AN (broad particle-size distribution with a significant portion of fines) and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 483 to 542 wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) from 0505 to 0577 cms (0199 to 0227 ins)

(3) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0462 cms (0199 to 0182 ins)

(4) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 300 to 483

wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (100 psia) from 0419 to Q462cms (0165 to 0182 ins)

(5) Changing the coarse fraction from screened +60 to -32 AN to screened +32 to -16 mesh AN reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0404 cms (0165 to 0159 in s)

Changing the type of ammonium nitrate type from Gulf Oil to Monsanto phase stabilized AN eliminated the problem of prill breakage but did not improve castability even with IDP plasticizer as shown by Batch SB-101 in Table 3-12 The slower burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponent with Batch SB-101 compared to Batch SB-64 is due to use of IDP as the plasticizer A small-scale propellant batch SB-102 was made with a coarse ground Monsanto AN to evaluate the effect of this material on castability and burn rate The coarse ground was made using a hammer mill with the following setting 4000 rpm hammer speed 160 rpm feed speed and 032-cm (18-in) screen

Screen analysis indicated this coarse ground AN had an average particle size of approximately 280 pm Propellant castability using this material was excellent but strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was reduced from 0485 to 0442 cms (0191 to 0174 ins) 9 The burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) was not achieved by varying AN type AN particle size or fraction of AN fine ground

The effect of replacing hammer mill ground AP by fluid energy mill ground AP on propellant burning rate was evaluated in a series of five small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) batches Three batches were made using DOA plasticizer and fine ground Gulf AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 55 pm Two batches were made using IDP plasticizer and coarse ground Monsanto AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm Results of this study are shown in Table 3-13 and Fig 3-7

3-35

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized40 IDP

plasticized

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 to 72 gm

Copper chromite as received

im21

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Screened (+60-32) Gulf Oil

Screened (+32 to -16 mesh) Gulf Oil

Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil

Fine ground Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground9 gm

Fraction of AN fine ground (wt )

Relative Castability

SB-64

AN-25

1200

-

200

200

1500

3050

-

-

2850

-

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-75

AN-63

1200

-

200

200

1500

2700

-

--

3200

-

1000

542

Poor

SB-48

AN-40

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

4130

--

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-48A

AN-40A

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

-

4130 -

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-61

AN-53

1200

200

200

1500

-

3050

-

2850

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-101 SB-102

AN-65 AN-65A

- -

1200 1200

200 200

200 200

1500 1500

- -

- -

- -3050 3050

- -

2850 -

2850

1000 1000

483 -

Poor Excellent

3-36

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-64 SB-75 SB-48 SB-48A SB-61 SB-101 SB-102

Formulation No AN-25 AN-63 AN-40 AN-40A AN-53 AN-65 AN-65A

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm 2 0366 0414 0277 0284 0338 0419 0351 (500 psia) (0144)(0163)(0109) (0112) (0133) (0165) (0138)

At 690 Ncm2 0505 0577 0419 0404 0462 0485 0442 (1000 psia) (0199)(0227)(0165) (0159) (0182) (0191) (0174)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 047 049 060() 050 045 022 032

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

These results indicated the following

(1) Using DOA plasticizer fine ground Gulf AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 55 gm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0508 to 0635 cms (0200 to 0250 ins)

(2) Using IDP plasticizer coarse ground Monsanto AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0442 to 0467 cms (0174 to 0184 ins)

(3) Use of the finer (55 to 63 pm) fluid energy ground AP did not increase pressure exponent

Maximum burning rate achieved using fluid energy ground AP was 0635 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0250 ins at 1000 psia) compared to the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

3-37

Table 3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-62 SB-64 SB-66 SB-102 SB-103

Formulation No AN-25 AN-25 AN-56 AN-65A- AN-65B

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 wt DOA plasticized 40 wt IDP plasticized

1200 -

1200 -

1200 -

-

1200 1200

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as

received 21 [m 200 200 200 200 200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 -1500

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil Coarse ground Monsanto

3050

-2850 -

3050

-2850

-

3050

-2850

-

3050 -

2850

3050 -

2850

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 9 1m Fluid energy ground 55 pm Fluid energy ground 63 pm

1000 --

1000 -

-

1000 -

1000 -

-

-

1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Ratesa

cms at 251C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)- 0368 (0145)

0366 (0144)

0457 (0180)

0351 (0138)

0422 (o166)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0508 (0200)

0505 (0199)

064 (025)

0442 (0174)

0467 (0184)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 049 049 048 032 014

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-38

0762 I I I 1 030 11nSTRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY -Z o BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

0E E

COARSE FRACTION HADBROAD SIZE DISTRIBUTION a Z o

WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTION OFFINES

oC 10I0 Ishy

lt 0508 020 w

zz Z 0-COARSE FRACTION WAS 04 n SCREENED TO OBTAIN

NARROW COARSE DISTRIBUTION (+60 -32

o Z

I-MESH) WITH NO FINES

-shy

0254 20

I 30

I 40

I 50

I 60

010 70

FRACTION QF FINE GROUND AN wt

Figure 3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (Gulf AN)

3-39

1270 050

E

U

o 0

I-

C

BURN RATE GOAL o

I-

D Co0

0762 FINE

DOA

GROUND AN AND

PLASTICIZER

030

0D 0o z

V) 0508-

COARSE GROUND AN AND IDP PLASTICIZER 020

0381 I I I I I 015 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) jm

Figure 3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size

ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-40

A small-scale propellant batch SB-65 was made to determine whether the burning rate could be increased significantly by replacing the ground AP by ground potassium perchlorate (KP) Strand burn rate tests were made on this batch and compared to the reference Batch SB-64 as shown in Table 3-14 Strand burning rate at690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was increased from 0505 to 0531 cms (0199 to 0209 ins) 5 but pressure exponent increased from 047 to 065 This approach was dropped because of the minimal increase in burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and the significant increase in pressure exponent

b Combustion Problems One of the problems in using ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer in solid propellants is the incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered specific impulse This problem was studied in the Phase 0 effort and partially resolved by modifying the formulations to include 10 wt AP Other approaches considered on this program to improve aluminum combustion and performance were

(1) Use of aluminum and zirconium mixtures Zirconium has

lower ignition temperature than aluminum

(2) Use of dichromate-coated aluminum powder

(3) Use of aluminummagnesium alloys

(4) Use of plasticizers containing more oxidizer to obtain a more favorable oxidizerfuel ratio

Some increases in propellant burning were also considered possible with several of these approaches Because of limited time and fundsonly the first two approaches were evaluated to any extent with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant Results of these studies are covered in the following discussion

A small-scale propellant batch SB-104 was made using the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum to evaluate the effect on strand burning rates Results of these strand burning rate tests are compared to strand burning rates of reference Batch SB-103 in Table 3-15 The replacement of the uncoated MD-05 aluminum by the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0467 to 0424 cms (0184 to 0167 ins) 9 No motors were loaded and tested to evaluate the effects of this dichromate-coated aluminum on delivered specific impulse

3-41

Table 3-14 Evaluation of Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-64 SB-65

Formulation No AN-25 AN-55

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 gim 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 [Lm 1000 -

Potassium perchlorate hammer mill ground 30 gm - 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0366 (0144) 0340 (013

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0505 (0199) 0531 (0209

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 049 065

Six small-scale propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of AlZr mixtures on propellant castability and strand burning rates Three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt Fe203 The other three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P Zirconium powder level was varied at 0 250 and 500 wt of propellant formulation (0 16 and 13 replacement of Al) Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-16 and Fig 3-8 General conclusions were as follows

3-42

Table 3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-103 SB-104

Formulation No AN-65B AN-65C

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 (uncoated) 1500 -

Aluminum H-5 (dichromate coated) - 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250C

(ins at 771F)

At 345 Ncm 2 (500 psia) 0422 (0166) 0366 (0144)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0467 (0184) 0424 (0167)

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 014 022

3-43

1016 1 1 1 1 040

-rl STRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY E BIASED BY RAM-225 (3 MOLD RELEASE

E

0762 030 0

CD 00 0 0 I---shy

100 CU-0202 P + 200 AD

z 0508 - 020 D

z z

- 100 Fe20 3 + 200 AD

0254 I I I -010 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ZIRCONIUM (REPLACING ALUMINUM) wt

Figure 3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium

ANAPA1HTPB Propellants

3-44

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Ingredients wt

iHTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1250 1000 1500 1250 1000

Zirconium powder --- 250 500 250 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 [m 200 200 200 200 200 200

Fe203 as received 100 100 100

Copper chromite as received --- - --- 100 100 100

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 gm 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)e

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0272 (0107)

0462 (0182)

0376 (0148)

0307 (0121)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0538 (0212)

0452 (0178)

0399 (0157)

0627 (0247)

0546 (0215)

0455 (0179)

3-45

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 390 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 052 058 058 044 054 057

apoor relative castability bUncastable

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

(1) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to make the propellant less castable on the 38-liter (1-gal) batch scale

(2) The 200 wt AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P ballistic modifier system gave faster burning rates than the 200 wt AD and 100 wt Fe203 ballistic modifier system

(3) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to reduce propellant strand burning rate and increase strand pressure exponent

Based on this study and the study of ballistic modifiers a formulation using 500 wt zirconium was selected for s6ale-up and evaluation in BATES motor firings Results of these additional tests are discussed in Section III-H-d and III-H-e

c Proc6ssing Studies Limited funds and time did not allow for any systematic study of processing variables to optimize processing conditions However processing methods and conditions were optimizedbased on experience Some of the specific approaches used for propellant mixing were

(1) Careful selections of order and manner of ingredient addition to disperse and wet solids

(2) Elevated temperatures prior to curative addition to wet and disperse solids and reduced temperatures after curative addition to minimize cure reactions

3-46

(3) Extended vacuum mix times prior to curative addition to

wet and disperse fine- solids

(4) Controlled moisture of ingredients and of the process

The effects of AN particle sizes and fraction of AN fine ground on propellant castability were discussed in conjunction with the burning rate studies

Antioxidants are commonly used with the R-45 HTPB binder to improve propellant pot life and aging stability The combination of UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-p-phenylene diamine) and DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone) appears to give synergistic effects and is very effective in extending pot life Protech 2002 (UTC proprietary metalshydeactivating antioxidant) and others of the Protech series have the additional advantage of being metal scavengers They tie up the transishytion metals that catalyze radical oxidations Four small-scale propellant batches were made initially to evaluate these pot-life extenders Table 3-17 summarizes results of this initial study The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH gave some improvement in propellant castability with no significant effect on propellant burning rate No improvement in propellant castability was observed with use of the Protech 2002 The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH was selected as the pot-life extender system to be used for additional evaluation

DOA was chosen initially as the plasticizer for use with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant It is one of the most commonly used plasticizers and its low cost is an advantage IDP has a lower viscosity and freezing point than DOA but is more costly than DOA Six smallshyscale propellant batches were made and tested to compare the two plasticizers DOA and IDP under the following three conditions

(1) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level without pot-life extenders

(2) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

(3) At the 50 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

Results of the study are summarized in Table 3-18 General conclusions from the study were

(1) The IDP consistently gave better castability than the DOA

(2) Use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH improved castability with both of the plasticizers DOA and IDP

(3) No major improvement in castability was observed by increasing the plasticizer in binder level from 40 to 50 wt

3-47

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1192 1177 1185

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl-hydroquinone) - 00 004 -

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshyphenylene diamine) -

Protech 2002 (UTC

proprietary antioxidant) -

004

-

004

015

-

015

Aluminum MD-105 1000 1000 1000 1000

Zirconium powder 500 500 500 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63ttxz 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm 1000 1000 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-48

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at

0770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 0323 0295 0282 0269 (500 psia) (0127) (0116) (0111) (0106)

At 690 Ncm 2 0475 0467 0483 0460 (1000 psia) (0187) (0184) (0190) (0181)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 057 066 078 078

aUncastable bpoor castability

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

The effect of plasticizer type on propellant burning rate was not conshyclusively determined from this study Two out of the three cases indicated that the IDP gave slower strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) To resolve this question two additional propellant batches SB-100 and SB-101 were made where the strand burn rate test results could not possibly be biased by the RAM-225 release agent The batches were formulated to have 40 wt plasticizer in binder and to use the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH Results of tests on these two batches are shown in Table 3-19 These results indicated the change from DOA to IDP plasticizer reduced the strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0544 to 0485 cms (0214 to 0191 ins) ( 11)

Based on results of these processing studies the following propellant selections were made for additional evaluation in scale-up batches and motor tests

(1) DOA plasticizer

(2) 40 wt plasticizer in binder level

(3) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH each at the 004 wt level

3-49

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

Formulation No AN-57a AN-58b AN-25 0 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 592 592 720 720 712 712

DTBH (25 dishytertiary butyl hydroquinone) 004 004 - - 004 004

UOP-36 (N-phenylshyN-cyclohexylshyP-phenylene diamine) 004 004 - - 004 004

DOA 600 - 480 - 480 -

IDP - 600 - 480- - 480

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 Am 200 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 [Lm 200 200 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate screened ungroundGulf Oil +60 -32 mesh 2700 2700 - - - -

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil - - 3050 3050 2700 2700

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 3200 3200 2850 2850 3200 3200

Ammonium perchloshyrate hammer mill ground 9 jim - - 1000 1000 1000 1000

3-50

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ammonium perabloshyrate fluid energy mill ground 55 pm

Total

Strand Burning Ratesd cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2 (500 to 1000 psia)

aGood castability

SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

AN-57a AN-58b AN-250 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

1000 1000 -

10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

0376 0371 0366 0478 0414 0353 (0148) (0146) (0144) (0188) (0163) (0139)

0572 0533 0505 0658 0577 0500 (0225) (0210) (0199) (0259) (0227) (0197)

059 053 047 046 049 048

bExcellent castability 0Poor castability dpossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-51

Table 3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-100

-AN-25a

SB-101

AN-65b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 712 712

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshy

P-phenylene diamine)

004

04

004

004

DOA 48o -

IDP - 480

Aluminum IAD-I05 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 72 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm

Total 1000

10000 1000

10000

Strand burning rates cms at 25degC (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

0406 (0160)

0544 (0214)

0419 (0165)

0485 (0191)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

041 022

apoor castability bFair castability

3-52

Results of these additional tests are discussed in sections on scale-up and ballistic evaluation

d Scale-up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Two propellant formulations were selected for evaluation in scale-up batches [946 liters 104 to 113 kg (25gal 230 to 250 lb)] and motor tests Formulation AN-25 was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum and 4 wt ballistic modifier Formulation AN-59 was identical except one-third of the aluminum (5 wt of the propellant formulation) was replaced by zirconium powder Details of the formulations are shownin Table 3-20 Both formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section e The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples from each batch

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rate

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-20 General conclusions from these tests were as follows

(1) The end-of-mix viscosities and pot lives on both batches were excellent There was no degradation of castability with zirconium as suggested by the small-scale batch studies

(2) Strand burning rates were slightly faster at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) for the formulation with zirconium The smallshyscale studies had suggested slower burning rates for formulashytions containing zirconium

(3) Both formulations had burning rateswhich were well below the burning rate goal 0478 and 0513 cms at 690 Ncm2

(0188 and 0202 ins at 1000 psia) versus goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(4) Card gap tests on both formulations were negative at 0 cards and therefore met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Density of the propellant containing zirconium was slightly higher than the propellant containing just aluminum as expected

3-53

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

Propellant Type Batch Number Formulation Number Batch Size kg (ib)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized)

UOP-36

DTBH

Ammonium dichromate grodnd 63 pm

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Aluminum powder

Zirconium powder

Ammonium nitrate Gulf Oil unground Gulf Oil fine ground

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 pm

Total

Brookfield apparent viscosities kP at 0C (OF)

Time after curative addition

07 h (end-of-mix) 13 h 34 h

Strand burning rates at 251C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) At 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

ANAPAlHTPB SB-73 AN-25

113 (250)

1192

004

004

200

200

1500

-

3050 2850

1000

10000

60 at 55 (130) 73 at 57 (135) 95 at 55 (130)

0257 (0101) 0373 (0147) 0462 (0182) 0478 (0188)

3-54

ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74 AN-59

104 (230)

1192

004

004

200

200

1000

500

3050 2850

1000

10000

41 at-57 (-135) 50 at-57 (-135)

0224 (0088) 0353 (0139) 0437 (0172) 0513 (0292)

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations (Continuation 1)

Propellant Type ANAPAlHTPB ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74Batch Number SB-73

Formulation Number AN-25 AN-59 Batch Size kg (ib) 113 (250) 104 (230)

Card Gap Tests 10 negative 10 negative at 0 cards at 0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) 16497 16630 gcm3 (lbin 3 ) (00596) (00601)

JANNAF Uniaxial properties Sm Ncm 2 (psi) 90 (130) 88 (127) era 47 48

Sb Ncm2

eb (psi) 90 (130)

47 88 (127)

48

(6) JANNAF uniaxial properties for both batches were comparable

Maximum stress Sm was in the range of 88 to 90 Ncm2

(127 to 130 psi) and strain at maximum stress em was in

the range of 47 to 48 The low strain values are adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

e Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlHTPB System (3 HCl in

Exhaust) The five candidate alternate propellants listed and defined

in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were all scaled up to processing of 113-kg (250-1b)

batches loaded into BATES motors and test fired The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions using nozzles manufactured

and cut to actual expansion ratios of 716 Both chamber pressure and thrust were measured The tests were conducted at ambient temperature

conditions with propellant charges conditioned to 250C (770F) The

measured sea level Isp swas corrected to a vacuum Isp by simply adding the

back-pressure correction The following equations define the pertinent ballistic parameters

PC _f tEWAT Pc Edttb

J t at 075 Pc init

3-55

-- t EWA T F = dt tF=ftat 075 PC initFtt

Ab gPc KN= - = -

At crp

-- f ta C g At PdtWp g PcKN rp

It Isp ms = shywip

fta itr Fdt

to

PaAeIsp vac ms =Isp MS + -

Wp expended

(ta + tb)2

Figure 3-9 shows the burning rate of the formulation number AN-25 the ANAPAlHTPB propellant system with 10 AP Table 3-21 is a tabulashytion of theBATES motor test data from the test firings of batch number SB-74 of formulation AN-25

f Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlZrHTPB BATES motors were also loaded and tested with the modified ANAPAlHTPB formulation

containing 5 Zr powder a 15-pm powder The burning rates determined in BATES motors are shown in Fig 3-10 and the ballistic data from the BATES motors tests are tabulated in Table 3-22

3-56

PRESSURE psic 4

102 8 103 2 4 6 102 4 6 1524 i 1 1 1 6

A BATES MOTOR DATA 1016 4

n 0278

E --U 0508 -

2

KN shy

(D 0254 - 1000 1o0 1

z 0203- 800- 88

z

0152 - 600 6

0102 - -400 4

0051 I 200 2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73

3-57

2540 2032

1524

102

-

2 4

PRESSURE

6 103

I

psa

2 4 6 104 10

BATES MOTOR DATA 6

1016 n 0277 4

0508 2

O

S0254-0229 0152 -

KN

1000 800600600

I0-866

z

a

6102 - 400 4

0051 I I I 1 200 1 2

69

Fig 3-10

138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74

3-58

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test data

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

W loaded kg (lb)

Wp expended kg (lb)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-sem2 (lb-s)

E-1453 E-1455

9-15-75 9-23-75

SB-732 SB-733

3376 3109 (1329) (1224)

3393 3119 (1336) (1228)

25225 2525 p(55611) (5567) 25028 2501

(55177) (5513)

9922 9904

3840 3855 (1512) (15178)

811 742

881 797

425 576 (616) (835)

493 634 (715) (919)

459 590 (666) (856)

38844 45878 (56339) (66541)

3-59

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 PropellantTable 3-21 (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s)

p (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia)

r at PC cms

(ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s

(Ib-s)

F (JF dttb)6 N (lb)

It (f F dt) (ta)

N-s (lbrs)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

In vac ins N-skg M

E-1455E-1453

4723240196 (68504)(58300)

61834790 (8968)(69147)

05180483 (0190) (02o4)

534445332

528544739

1432 1424 (4700) (4673)

948953

5174650665 (11633)(11390)

6973461910 (15677)(13918)

53745852257 (120826)(11748)

212844207165 (21704)(21125)

88828820

228132226534 (2310) (23263)

3-60

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids Aluminum Oxidizer

88 15 AP-1O AN-59 HMX 0

Run No E-1453 E-1455

Expansion ratio 688 700

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test date

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

Wp loaded kg (ib)

Wp expended kg (ib)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

-E-1454 E-1456

9-18-75 9-26-75

SB-741 SB-742

3287 3119 (1294) (1228)

3307 3142 (1302) (1237)

2561 2561 (5647) (5646)2534 2528

(5586) (5574)

9891 9872

3835 38298 (1510) (15078)

3-61

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-IO AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s)

fP dt (ta) N-scm (lb-s)

Pc (f P dttb)

Ncm2 (psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

E-1454 E-1456

769 740

824 784

465 552 (675) (800)

541 620 (785) (899)

540 614 1 (783) (890)

40311 4482C (58467) (6500

41806 46000 (60634) (66718)

5242 6057 (7603) (8785)

0498 0518 (0196) (0204)

478 531

4726 523

13940 14319 (45736) (46977)

928 9527

3-62

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb)N (lb)

it (fF dt) (ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s-)

Isp efficiency

lsi vac ms N-skg(s22055

Expansion ratio

E-1454 E-1456

50189 50576 (11283) (11370)

6526 6835 (1467) (15365)

52044 52044 (11700) (11770)

20319 20447 (2072) (2085)

8598 865

22016

(2249) (2245)

696 694

3-63

8 ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (gt3 Wt HCl in Exhaust)

The propellant development work accomplished on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to this point indicated that the burn rate goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with the constraint of lt3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was probably not achievable Development work was continued on this propellant with the HC1 constraint removed but held to a minimum This section discusses that propellant development effort

a Burning Rate Studies Four small-scale batches (1500 g) were made varying the FEM AP (fluid energy mill-ground ammonium perchlorate) level from 10 to 30 wt The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground AD and 2 wt CU-0202 P was used End-of-mix viscosities pot life and cured strand burning rates were measured on each batch Objective of this work was to determine what FEM AP level was needed

to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) The formulations and test results are shown in Table 3-23and Fig 3-11 These results lead to the following conclusions

(1) The strand burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) is achievable using 18 wt FEM AP A motor burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) may require a slightly higher FEM AP level

(2) End-of-mix viscosities werein the range of 88 to152 kP at 520C (125 0 F) for FEM AP levels ranging from 10 to 20 wt Casting lives for these batches were 2_35 h at

520C (125 0F)

(3) Using FEM AP and increasing the AP level from 10wt to 18-wt increases HCI in the exhaust from 29 to =50

Thermoballistic calculations indicated that reducing the ballistic modifier level to 2 wt by elimination of the AD increased theoretical Isp by 196 N-skg (2 s) Elimination of the AD was desirable from other considerations Studies had shown that it crosslinks the R-45 prepolymer (probably through the double bond) and degrades propellant castability and physical properties Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made varying the FEM AP level over the range of 15 to 25 wt level Only 2 wt as received CU-0202 P was used as ballistic modifier End-of-mix viscosities and-cured strand burning rates were measured

Results of this study are shown in Table 3-24 and Fig 3-11 General conclusions from this work were

(1) Approximately 20 wt FEM AP is required to meet the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosities were in the range of 18 to 19 kP at 520C (1250F)

3-64

1 1 0902286

0802032 - 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 200

AD + 200 CU-0202 P

KZ 1778 690 Ncm2 (1000 psa) -070 E 200CU-0202 P

0 -060 O 1524

lt I- 345 Ncm

2 (500 psa) 200 AD 200CU-0202 P

0501270

z z

040 D2 1016 co

z z

0762- 030n

345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 200 CU-0202 P 0200508 -

I I 0100254 I I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FEM AP LEVEL wt

Fig 3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

3-65

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder 40 DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground (72 im)

Copper chromite as received (21 1im)

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto unground

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto fine grind

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy ground (63 tim)

SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

3050 3050 3050 -3050

2850 2350 1850 850

1000 1500 2000 3000

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier) (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

Formulation No AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

Brookfield Viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) kPh after CA

End-of-mix -152067 112062 88038 2806 LU

Pot life 18417 26418 22414 shy25627 3228 27224 3237 4038 40834

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0424 (0167) 0536 (0211) 0739 (0291) 1461 (0575) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0528 (0208) 0693 (0273) 1067 (0420) 2136 (0841)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 - 038 051 052

CA = curative addition

Table 3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (2 Wt Ballistip Modifier)

Batch No Formulation No

Ingredientswt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate

FEM ground 63 Pm

Brookfield End-of-Mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F)

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-135 AN-69

1200

1500

200

3050

2550

1500

10000

19

0437 (0172)

0660 (0260)

058

SB-136 SB-137 AN-70 AN-71

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

3050 3050

1550 2050

2500 2000

10000 10006

18

0884 (0348) 0615 (0242)

0242 (0489) 0930 (0366)

051 060

3-68

Based on these results formulation AN-71 with 2 wt as received CUshy0202 P and 20 wt FEM AP was selected for additional evaluation with

a scale-up batch and motor tests

b Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation Formulation AN-71 was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch [946 liter (25 gal) 113 kg (250 lb)] and motor tests It was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum 20 wt FEM AP and 2 wt ballistic modifier Details of the formulation are shownin Table 3-25 Formulation AN-71 was successfully mixed in the 946-liter (25-gal) mixer and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section III-H-8-c and d Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests

were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are also summarized in Table 3-25 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The propellant end-of-mix viscosity was 28 kP at 530C (127degF) which is high but acceptable Pot life was about 2 hours

(2) The strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was 0922 cms (0363 ins) which met the goal of 089 cms at

690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(3) Strand pressure exponent was 061 Motor pressure exponents are typically lower than strand pressure exponents The generally high pressure exponent is associated with the low ballistic modifier level (2 wt CU-0202 P) and the

fine (FEM) AP

(4) Card gap tests were negative at 0 cards Therefore they met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) The propellant density and JANNAF uniaxial properties obtained were typical of properties obtainedwith the ANAPAlHTPB propellant Measured density was 16497 gcm3 at 250C (00596 lbin3 at 770 F) Sm was 89 Ncm2 (129 psi) with an em of 37 The low strain values were adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

3-69

Table 3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation

ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Type Batch Number SB-140 Formulation No AN-71

113 kg (250 lb)Batch Size

Formulation wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized) 1192 004UOP-36 004DTBH

Copper Chromite as received 21 Am 200 Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 Ammonium nitrate

Monsanto unground 3050 Monsanto fine ground 2050

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 2000

Total 10000

Brookfield Apparent Viscosities kP at 0C (OF) Time after curative addition

09 h (end-of-mix) 28 at 53 (127) 19 h 52 at 52 (125) 29 h 73 at 52 (125)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins) At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) 0445 (0175) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0612 (0241) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) 0785 (0309) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0922 (0363)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 061 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests Negative at

0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) gcm3 (lbin 3) 16497 (00596)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties Sm Ncm2 (psi) 89 (129) em 37

89 (129)Sb Ncm2 (psi)eb 37

3-70

c Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAIHTPB (gt3 HCI in Exhaust)

As has been discussed the effects on this candidate propellant system

resulting from increasing the AP content were studied A formulation

with 20 AP and burning rate modifier reduced to 2 met the burning The burningrate and Isp goal This formulation is identified as AN-71

rates and measured Isp are shown in Fig 3-12 and Table 3-26 respectively

d Summary One ANAPAlHTPB propellant formulation was

developed that conformed to the program constraints for lt3 wt HCl

in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards

classification This formulation AN-25 had a motor burning rate

-of only 053 cms at 690 Ncm2 (021 ins at 1000 psia) and a

= 716 of only 2285 N-skg (233 s) A maximumdelivered vacuum Ip E

strand burning rate of only 064 cms at 690 Ncm2 (025 ins at

1000 psia) (unbiased by RAM-225 release agent) was achieved within

the program constraints with a small-scale batch using fluid energy

Since the development work indicated thatmillground (55 [m) AP

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1300 psia)

was probably not achievable with the constraint of _3 wt HI in the

propellant exhaust development work was continued with this constraint

removed but held to a minimum Formulation AN-71 was developed to

This formulation used only 200 meet the program goals on that basis

wt copper chromite as ballistic modifier and 2000 wt fluid energy

It had a motor burning rate of 097 cms atmill ground (63 gim) AP 1000 psia) and a delivered vacuum I E = 716690 Ncm2 (038 ins at

of 2403 N-skg (245 s) Table 3-27 summarizes and compares te properties

of these two formulations versus the program goals

The following summarizes the status of the ANAPAlHTPB propellant

development

(1) The basic ANAPA1HTPB propellat ip the second most

promising candidate of the three basic propellants

to good(2) Demonstrated that a few of AP is essential

aluminum combustion

of AP is required to meet(3) Demonstrated that more than 10

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins

at 1000 psia)

(4) Formulation AN-71 with 20 wt AP met the program goals for

burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [097 cms (038 ins)

achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] and delivered

= 716 [2403 N-skg (245 s) achieved versusvacuum Is at E

goal of 21403 N-skg (245 s)] but did not meet the goal

for pressure exponent (048 achieved versus goal of K042)

It conformed to the constraint for a Class 2 propellant

but did not conform to the constraint for lt_3 wt HUl in

the propellant exhaust

3-71

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellent

Solids 88 Alumindm 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX ---

Run No E-1484

Test Date 6-10-76

BatchChg No SB-1401

Nozzle Dt init cm (in) 48636 (19148)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 46380 (1826)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3025 (6670)

Wp expended kg(ib) 3025 (6668)

Wt expended 9997

Web thickness cm (in) 4648 (1830)

tb s 698

ta s 730

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 313 (454)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 380 (551)

Pc final Ncm 2 (psia) 317 (460)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24506 (355435)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24952 (3619)

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 351 (509) (psia)

r at cCms (ins) 0665 (0262)

KN initial 2103

KN average 21987

C ms (fts) 14604 (47914)

C efficiency 972

3-72

-E-1491

6-25-76

SB-1402

48636 (19148)

46355 (1825)

3016 (6650)

3003 (6621)

9956

4630 (1823)

654

705

317 (460)

421 (610)

238 (345)

24525 (355710)

24948 (36184)

3750 (5439)

0709 (0279)

2103

-21998

14638 (48026)

975

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX --shy

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 6248797 (14o4786) 6281131 (1412055)

F (fF dttb) N (lb) 895249 (20126) 960415 (21591)

it (fF dt for ta) 6356996 (142911) 6382382(1434817)

N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 210117 (21426) 215588 (21576)

Isp efficiency 9226 9256

Isp vac ms (corr) 240214 (24495) 241008 (24576)

Expansion ratio 716 726

(5) Formulation AN-25 with 10 wt AP met the program goal for presshysure exponent (028 achieved versus goal of lt042) but did not

meet the goals for burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [053 cms (021 ins) achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] dr for delivered vacuum I eE = 716 [2285 N-skg (233 s) achieved versus goal of gt2403 N-skg (245 s)] It conformed to the constraints for a Class 2 propellant and gt3 wt hCl in the propellant exhaust

(6) Demonstrated good castability and a pot life greater than

34 hours for formulation AN-25

(7) Demonstrated acceptable castability for formulation AN-71

(8) Successfully loaded and test fired 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with both formulations

(9) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

9 ANHMXAIHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished in the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined pershyformance goals within the constraints specified One of the advantages of this basic propellant is that it contains no AP and consequently generates no HCl in the exhaust However typical formulations using

3-73

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104

1524 I 1 1 6

1016 -A BATES MOTOR DATA 4

0 5x 10 MOTOR DATA 0508 - 2

E U

n =048 KN

0254 1-- 000 10 o 0203 800-6L 8

Z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0124 - 400 4 D

0051 200 2

I 10-20025 I1 I I

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm 2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140

3-74

Table 3-27 ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Achieved Properties vs Goals

Achieved Value

SB-140SB-73 AN-71AN-25-Alternate Propellant

Goal (10 wt- AP) (20 wt AP)Property

BATES motor Burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

089 (035) 053 (021) 097 (038)acms (ins)

BATES motor lt042 028pressure exponent

-Delivered vacuum sn

E 716 N-skg (s) 2403 (2245) 2285 (233) 2403 (245)

lt3 30 631C1 in exhaust

Meets card gap yes Required yesrequirement for Class 2 (negative (negative

at 0 cards)at 0 cards)

a45-kg (10-1b) motor test data

7) about to 20 wt HMX have theoretical Isp values

(vacuum and E 15 196 N-skg (2 s) less than comparable ANHNXAP(10)AlHTPB

formulations

Reduction in program funds and scope limited development effort on

this basic propellant to only four exploratory mixes

Two 10-g hand mixes one uncured and one a Safety Tests cured were made of formulations with 20 wt Class

A HMX to initially -Impact

check material compatibility and propellant safety properties

tests (DSC-differential scanning calorimeter) were made on both mixes

The formulations and results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-28

For comparison purposes these same safety tests were made on propellant

samples of the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-B-1123) Table 3-29

compares the safety properties of the candidate ANHMXAlHTPB formulation

AN-52 with the safety properties of PBAN baseline formulation TP-H-1123

These tests indicated

3-75

Table 3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No

Formulation No

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45 Alrosperse Premix DOA (4o)

Aluminum Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm Copper chromite as received Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 pm HMX Type II Class A

(DOA coated) Ammonium nitrate ground Ammonium nitrate unground

(+60 -32 mesh screened fraction) IPDI

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight 0 fire 50 fire

Electrostatic Sensitivity J

Thermal Stability (DSC - 10OCmin heating rate)

SB-59 SB-60

AN-51 (uncured) AN-52

1108 1108

1500 1500 200 200 200 200 7

2020 2020 3410 3410

1500 1500 none shy 062 9938 10000

4318 (17 )a 4572 (18) 4826 (19 )a 508 (20)

gt128 gt128

No exotherm No exotherm over tempera- over temperashyture range 21 ture range 21 to 1490c (70 to 1490c (70

to 3000 F) to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

3-76

Table 3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAiHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-52)

Formulation TP-H-1123 (PBAN Baseline)

Batch No SB-77

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400

HTPB binder

Aluminum 1600

Ballistic modifiers 040

Ammonium perchlorate 6960

Ammonium nitrate

HMX Type II Class A

Impact sensitivity cm (in) for 18 kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4318 (18) 50 fire 4953 (195)

Electrostatic sensitivity J gt128

Thermal stability (DSC - 100 Cmin heating rate) No exotherm

over temperature range 21 to -1490c (70tto 3000F)

DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

AN-52

SB-60

1190

1500

400

4910

2000

4572 (18) 508 (20)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000F)

3-77

(1) Formulation AN-52 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123)

(2) DSC data suggested that thermal stability of the 20 wt HMX propellant and gross material compatibility over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 300 0F) were adequate

(3) Formulations with up to 20 wt HMX could be safely processed inthe JPL ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

b Burning Rate Studies Two small-scale batches (1000 g) were made varying the level of Class A HMX from 1500 to 2000 wt Strand burn rate tests were made on cured propellant from both batches The formulations and results of strand burn rate tests are shown in Table 3-30 Strand burning rates increased from 0414 to 0450 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0163 to 0177 ins at 1000 psia) with the 1500 to 2000 wt increase in Class A HMX while the strand pressure exponent remained constant at 042 Although the strand pressure exponent met the performance goal of lt042 the burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)were well below the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) These very slow burn rates suggest that the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant may not be a viable candidate for achieving program goals

c Hazard Classification Card gap samples were cast cured and tested from the two batches shownin Table 3-30 Results of the card gap tests indicated positive tests at 35 and 70 cards on both batches Therefore these formulations with 15 and 20 wt Class A HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant hazard classification one of the major constraints Propellant development work on the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant was terminated at this point

d Summary The following summarizes the status of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant development

(1) Demonstrated that 1500 and 2000 wt_ Class A HMX resulted in Class 7 propellants

(2) Achieved a strand burning rate of 0450 cms (0177 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and a strand pressure exponent of 042 with a formulation containing 2000 wt Class A HMX

(3) Demonstrated good castability of the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant

(4) Discontinued development of this basic propellant as a result of reduction in funds

3-78

Table 3-30 ANHM4XHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-82A (HMX)

ANH-1

SB-81

ANH-1

(HMX)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class A 1500 2000

Ammonium nitrate 5400 4900

Card gap tests

0 cards 35 cards 70 cards

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

1 positive 2 positive

0-310 (0122) 0414 (0163)

042

1 positive 2 positive

0340 (0134) 0450 (0177)

042

3-79

10 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work-accompshylished on the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraints specified The constraint of lt_3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was accomplished by limiting the AP level in the formulation to10 wt The constraint of a Class 2 propellant hazard classification was primarily accomplished by limiting the HMX Class (particle size) and level to meet the card gap requireshyments for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards)

a Safety Tests Safety tests were performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes containing 20 wt Class A HMX to check material compatishybility and safety properties The formulations and the test results are shown in Table 3-31 As in the case of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant these safety tests results were compared to similar safety test results on the PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123) Table 3-32 shows this comparison General conclusions were

(1) Formulation AN-50 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as TP-H-1123

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F) as determined by the DSC

(3) Formulations with-up to 20 wt HMX could besafely proshycessed in the JPL-ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

Safety tests were also performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes to check material capability and propellant safety properties when the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were incorporated into ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellants Selected level for both UOP-36 and DTBH was 004 wt Impact sensitivity electrostatic sensitivity and thermal stability (DSC) tests were made on samples from the mix with the pot-life extendshyers SB-127 and on samples from a control mix without the pot-life extenders SB-126 The formulations and test results were shown in Table 3-33 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The mix with the pot-life extenders had essentially the same impact sensitivity and electrostatic sensitivity as the control mix

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000 F) (DSC)

b Burning Rate Studies Six small-scale batches were made varying HMX particle size at two sizes Class A ( 149 lm) and Class E (15 to 20 gim) and HMX level at three levels 10 15 and 20 wt Objective of this study was to determine the effects of HMX particle

3-80

Table 3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No SB-57 (uncured)

Formulation No AN-49

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45

Alrosperse Premix 1108

DOA (40)

Aluminum 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm 200

Copper chromite as received 200

Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 Jm 1000

HMX Type II Class A (1 DOA coated) 2020

Ammonium nitrate ground 3910

IPDI none

9938

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for

18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 Fire 381 (15)a

50 Fire 43-18 (17 )a

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over (DSC at 10degCmin heating temperature range rate) 21 to 1490C

(70 to 3000 F)

SB-58

AN-50

1108

1500

200

200

1000

2020

3910

062

10000

5334 (21)

5715 (225)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples

3-81

Table 3-32 -Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate--ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-50)

Formulation TP-H-1123 AN-50

(PANbaseline)

Batch Number SB-77 SB-58

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400 ---

HTPB binder --- 1190

Aluminum 1600 1500

Ballistic modifiers 040 400

Ammonium perchlorate 6960 1000

Ammonium nitrate --- 3910

HMX Type II Class A --- 2000

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4572 (18) 5334 (21)

50 fire 4953 (195) 5715 (225)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability (DSC at 100Cmin heating No exotherm over No exotherm-over rate) temperature rangeru temperature range

21 to 1490C 21 to 149 0 Cshy(70 to 3000 F) (70 to 3000 F)

size and level on propellant hazard classification (card gap tests) strand burningrates and relative castability Tests were performed on- samples from each of these batches and the results are summarized in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 alongwith-the formulations Results of the card gap tests and relative castability are discussed in the hazards classification and processing sections respectively The strand burn- ing rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) were plotted versus HMX level in Fig 3-13 forthe two different HMXparticle sizes Class A and Class E Although the strand burning rates are biased to faster values by the

3-82

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests

Formulations for 10-g Hand Mixes

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate attritor ground (44 pm)

Copper chromite attritor

ground (17 Pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (63 gm)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-Nshycyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine)

DTBH (ditertiary butyl hydroquinone)

Safety Tests (Cured Propellant)

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight)

0 Fire

50 Fire

SB-126 SB-127

ANH-16A (Control) ANH-30

1200 1192

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1300 1300

100 1000

004

0-04

10000 10000

43 (17) 57 (19)

52 (205) 51 (20)

3-83

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests (Continuation 1)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over No exotherm over

(DSC at 10degCmin heating rate)

temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000F)

temperature range 21 to 149 0C (70 to 3000F)

RAM-225 release agent the relative ranking and trends are believed to be valid General conclusions from these rankings and trends are as follows

(1) The fine particle size HMX Class E (15-20 pm) gave signifishycantly faster burning rates than the coarse Class A (=149 pm) HMX

(2) The fine particle size HMX Class E gave lower pressure exponent than the coarse Class E HMX

(3) Strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) increased significantly with HMX level to about 15 wt and tended to level in the 15 to 20 wt range

From burning rate considerations the fine size Class E HMX was preferred because it gave faster burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponents Formulation ANH-5A [Batch SB-85A(HMX)] was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed in Sections III-H-10-f and III-H-10-g on Scale-up and Ballistic Evaluation

Cured propellant strands to this point in the program had been prepared by casting the uncured propellant into molds which formed individual strands and which had been coated with RAM-225 release agent Test data from the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings(from Batch SB-89 (first scale-up batch) revealed a large discrepancy between strand burn rates and the 45-kg (10-1b) motor burn rates An investigation of this discrepshyancy revealed that the RAM-225 was the cause Strands were prepared in5 the following three ways and tested for comparison

(1) Strands cured in the RAM-225 release molds and restricted

(2) Strands cut from a solid block of cured propellant and restricted

(3) Strands cut from a block of cured propellant then given light spray coat of RAM-225 dried in 710 C (1600F) oven then restricted

3-84

Table 3-34 ANH-MXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class A

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchlorate

ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates2

at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500to 1000 psia)

SB-88

ANH-8

1200

1500

200

200

1000

4900

1000

2 negative

1 negative

0480(0189)a

6 65 (0 2 62 )a0

048

SB-83 SB-84

ANH-3 NH-4

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1500 2000

4400 3900

1000 1000

-

1 positive 1 positive

2 positive 2 positive

0 622 (0 245 )a 05 41(02 13 )a

0826 (0 32 5)a 0 7 47 (02 94 )a

041 047

3-85

Table 3-34 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) (Continuation 1)

Shore A Hardness (3 s) 81 80 82

Relative Castability Good Good Good

aStrands were cast into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

Results of the tests are summarized in Table 3-36 and Fig 3-14 Very good agreement was obtained between the burn rate of strands cured in the RAM-225 release mold and strands cut from a cured block of propelshy

lant and then sprayed with RAM-225 However both these sets of burn

rates were erroneously fast compared to the 5 x 10 motor burn rates In contrast the strand burn rates obtained from cut strands which were

not treated with RAM-225 were much slower and agreed fairly well with motor data

A brief investigation was made to determine the composition of RAM-225 and whether it could be used as an improved ballistic modifier in the propellant formulation Chemical analysis of RAM-225 indicated

that it is a high molecular weight silicone oil in the solvents isopropashynol and heptane Two 38-liter (1-gal) batches of propellant were made with 015 wt dimethyl silicone (1000 cS) One batch had 400 wt mixed ballistic modifiers (ammonium dichromate and copper chromite) and

the other batch had 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier Both batches made with the 015 wt dimethyl silicone showed signs of viscosity buildup even before curative addition The batch with the 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier became too viscous to process to completion Tests results on the successfully completed batch with 015 wt dimethshyyl silicon [Batch SB-107 (HMX)] are shown in Table 3-37 Test results from Batch SB-108 (HMX) are also included in this table for comparative purposes General conclusions from these tests are as follows

(1) No significant changes in strand burning rates were observed due to addition of 015 wt dimethyl silicone

(2) The dimethyl silicone caused rapid propellant viscosity buildup even before curative addition and therefore the material appears impractical from propellant processing considerations

A series of six small-scale (1000 g) batches was made with the specific objectives of increasing propellant burn rate improving castashybility and improving burn rate reproducibility US Agri-Chemicals (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent was used for all six batches The following variables were evaluated

3-86

0

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations --HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchloshyrate ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

32 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770 F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-87 SB-85A SB-86

ANH-7 ANH-5A ANH-6

1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500

200 200 200

200 200 200

1000 1500 2000

4900 4400 3900

1000 1000 1000

2 neg -

1 neg

I neg 2 neg 1 pos

1 pos

(500 psia) 0 767 (0 302 )a 0 930 (0 366 )a 0912(0359)a

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0970(0382)a 1105 (0 43 5 )a 1 128 (0444 )a

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2

(500to 1000 psia) 033 024 031

3-87

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation

(Class E HMX) (Continuation 1)

89 88Shore A Hardness (3 s) 90

Relative Castability Fair Fair Marginal

aStrands were east into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

(1) Ammonium nitrate particle size Replacement of part or all of the large unground prills by a coarse-ground ammor nitrate

(2) Plasticizer type Replacement of DOA (dioctyl adipate) by IDP (isodecyl pelargonate)

Relative castability and strand burn rates were measured on each batch Results of this study are summarized in Tables 3-38 and 3-39 and Fig 3-15 General conclusions regarding propellant burn rates from the study were as follows

(1) Replacement of the very large unground ammonium nitrate prills by coarsely ground ammonium nitrate reduced propelshy

lant burning rate

(2) Replacement of DOA by IDP slightly reduced propellant burnshying rate (Q2)

(3) Strand pressure exponents were typically 036 or less well within the goal of lt042

(4) The US Agri-Chemical (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent handled without caking and had less tendshyency to size reduce during handling tand mixing These

factors should improve propellant burn rate reproducibility

The reduction in burn rate by replacement of unground prills with coarseshyly ground AN was unexpected and inconsistent with usual solid propellant experience Usually propellant burn rate increases with increasing fractions of ground oxidizer The mechanism for this unusual response has not been identified to date Formulation ANH-12 Batch SB-94 (HMX)

had the fastest burn rate 0836 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0329 ins at 1000 psia) consistent with acceptable castability Therefore it was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of replacing bamer mill ground AP with the finer fluid energy mill (FEM) ground AP on propellant properties Micromerograph analysis

3-88

270I 050-K STRAND BURN RATES BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

CLASSE HMXZ 1016 040 0 0ashy10

7CLASS AHMX 0762 - 030 Z

z nD 2

z - -

Ce 0508 -020 1 F-I) 0 5 10 15 20

HMX wt

Fig 3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-89

Table 3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)

Strand Burning Rate cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

Strands cured Strands cut 5 x 10 motor Strands cut in RAM-225 from cured firings from cured

Pressure released mold block of block of Ncm 2 (psia) propellant propellant

sprayed with RAMshy225 dried and tested

690 (1000) 0991 (0390) 0721 (0284) 0660 (0260) 0983 (0387)

517 (750) 0876 (0345) - 0662 (0245)

345 (500) 0765 (0301) 0599 (0236) 0549 (0216) 0785 (0309)

172 (250) 0572 (0225) - 0457 (0180)

Pressure 042 027 028 033 exponent

indicated that the fluid energy mill AP had a mass median diameter of 63 Am compared to 90 pm for typical hammer mill ground AP Batch SB-110 (HMX) was made using 1700 wt Class E HMX and 1000 wt of the FEM AP A reference batch SB-98 (HMX) was made using the hammer mill ground AP Strand burn rates and relative castability were detershy

mined on both of the batches Results are shown in Table 3-40 and Fig 3-16

(1) Replacement of the hammer mill ground (9 pm) AP by the FEM ground (63 pm) AP increased strandburn rate to 0950 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0374 ins at 1000 psia) This exceeds the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) Strand pressure exponent appeared to be reduced with use of the FEM ground AP

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of finer ballistic modifier particle size on propellant properties As discussed in the ANAPHTPB propellant development section an attritor mill was used to size reduce the ballistic modifiers ammonium dichroshymate and copper chromite Batch SB-117 (HMX) was made using 200 wt

3-90

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPBbinder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper Chromite

Dimethyl silicone

(1000 cS)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground US Steel with anti-caking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground US Steel with antishycaking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium perchlorate ground

SB-l08 (Reference)

AN-20

1200

1500

200

200

-

2000

-

2900

-

1000

1000

SB-107 SB-109

ANH-19 ANH-21

1185 1185

1500 1500

200 100

200 100

015 015

2000 2000

2900 3100

-

1000 1000

- -

1000 1000

3-91

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations -Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation (Continuation 1)

Relative Castability Excellent Uncastable Mix could not castability be completed

cured up in mix bowl

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0665 (0262) 0673 (0265) -

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0818 (0322) 0808 (0318) -

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 026

Card gap tests

35 cards

55 cards

69 cards 3 positive 3 positive

attritor ground (17 pm) copper chromite 1700 wt Class E HMX and FEM ground (63 pm) AP No ammonium dichromate was used in this batch as a part of the overall effort to achieve the burning rate goal 089

cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with improved performance (Isc)castability and physical properties Reference Batch SB-116 (AN ) was made using as received (21 pm) copper chromite Table 3-41 summarizes results of Brookfield end-of-mix visosity and strand burn rate tests on these two batches These results led to the following conclusions

(1) In an IDP plasticized formulation using only 200 wt CU-0202 P as ballistic modifier coarse ground AN and 63 Im FEM ground AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 m increased the strand burn rate at 690

Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0724 to 0737 cms (0285 to 0290 ins) t_2

(2) No significant change in strand pressure exponent was observed

(3) Castability was good for both batches

3-92

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103

25401 0 1 100

2032 - A CURED IN RAM-225 RELEASED STRAND MOLD - 8

B STRAND CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK

1524- BURNED WITHOUT TREATMENT 6

EU C STRANDS CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK SPRAYED WITH RAM-225 DRIED THEN BURNED ui

1016- 4 0C oD

z 7I- 0 z z z

CA _B

o 0o

z z0508 2

V)

BATCH No SB-89 (HMX)

FOMULATION ANH-9

0254 I I i I 10-1 69 103 138- 207 345 690

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (IIX) Formulation ANH-9

3-93

Table 3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size

Variation (Class E HMX - DOA Plasticizer)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with antishycaking coating)

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with

anticaking coating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative castability

Strand burning rates

at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(at 1000 psia)

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-90 SB-91 SB-93 SB-95

ANH-9 ANH-10 ANH-11 ANH-13

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

1500 1500 1500 1500

4400 2900 1760

- 1500 2640 4400

_

1000 1000 1000 1000

Uncastable Uncastable Marginally Castable castable

- 0678 0678 0516 (0 267 )a (0234)a (0 2 0 3 )a

0953 0859 0859 0665 -(0 3 7 5 )a (0 3 3 8 )a (0 299)a (0 2 6 2 )a

034 035 036

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were cut

from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased

by RAM-225 release agent

3-94

Table 3-39 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX - IDP Plasticizer)

Batch No SB-94 SB-96

Formulation No ANH-12 ANH-14

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticizer) 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium diohromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class E 1500 1500

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 2900

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 1500 4400

Ammonium perchlorate ground 1000 1000

Relative Castability Good castability

Excellent castability

Strand burning rates at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

-

0836 (0 329 )a

0518 (0 204 )a

0655 (0258) a

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were

cut from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased by RAM-225 release agent

3-95

1016 1 040

eE aQCNO

DOA PLASTICIZER

z CI-o 100

lt 0762 030 - I--

IDP PLASTICIZER

z Z

a a z z

--- 1-shy

0508 I-I I I20

cn

0 20 40 60 80 100 FRACTION OF COARSE GROUND AN wt

Fig 3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN

3-96

C

Table 3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations -AP Particle Size Variation (HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

Ammonium perchloriate hammer mill ground (Micromerograph 50 wt point 9 gim)

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (Mieromerograph 50 wt point 63 pm)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 45 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Relative Castability

3-97

SB-98 ANH-16 Reference

1200

1500

200

200 shy

1700

2700

1500

1000

0653 (0257)

0810 (0319)

030

Good

castability

SB-110 ANH-16

1200

1500

200

200

1700

2700

1500

-

1000

0843 (0332)

0950 (0374)

017

Good castability

slightly more viscous than SB-98 (HMX)

1270 1 050

K K

CN4 E 0

1016 040 0

o 0

100

BURN RATE GOAL

z z

= 0762 - 030 D

z z

05081 I I I I 020 40 50 60 70- 80 90 100t

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) gm

Fig 3-16i Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-98

Table 3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Particle Size Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Copper chromite

As received (21 pm)

Attritor ground (17 pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground

Total

Relative castability

Brookfield end-of-mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F) Strand burning rates at 250C

(770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

3-99

SB-116 (Reference) SB-117

ANH-24A ANH-24B

1200 1200

1500 1500

200

- 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1500 1500

1000 1000

10000 10000

Good Good

168 136

0610 (0240) 0627 (0247)

0724 (0285) 0737 (0290)

028 024

As was observed with the ANAPAIHTPB propellant reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burn rates

Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better optimize the ballistic modifier system for the basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB propelshylant Previous to this point in the program the mixed ballisticmodifishyer system of 200 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) with 200 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was used It was desirable to reduce the total ballistic modifier level to less than 400 wt and recover some shy

performance (II delivered) Elimination of AD was also desirable because of its tendency to crosslink the R-45 prepolymer with subsequent degradation of propellant castability and physical properties Batches SB-132 (HMX) and SB-138 (HMX) were made using only as-receivedCU-0202 P as the ballistic modifier at the 200 wt and 300 wt levels respecshytively The objective of testing these two batches was to determine whether the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm

2

(1000 psia) could be achieved by using only CU-0202 P at levels less than 400 wt Brookfield end-of-mix and strandburning rates were measured on both batches Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-42 and they indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate achieved with 300 wt as-received CU-0202 P was 6nly 0810 cms (0319 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(2) Based on extrapolation the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) does not appear achievshyable even at 400 wt as-received CU-0202 P

(3) A mixed ballistic modifier system of AD and CU-0202 P appears necessary to meet the burning rate goal

The third batch SB-134 (HMX) was made using the mixed ballistic modifier system of 100 wt hammer mill ground (72 m) AD and 200 wt as-received CU-0202 P Brookfield viscosity and strand burning rates were also measured on this batch and results are also shown in Table 3-42 They indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate of 0879 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0346 ins at 1000 psia) was achieved with Batch SB-134 (HMX) This almost meets the goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosity of 21 kP at 520C (125 0 F) indicated the propellant had acceptable castability

Limited time and budget did not allow for any additional optimization of the ballistic modifier system Therefore Formulation ANH-33 [Batch SB-134 (HMX)] was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed inthe sections on Scale-Up and Ballistic Evaluation

3-100

---

Table 3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 [m

Ammonium dichromate Hamshymer mill ground 72 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

HMX Class E

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground 63 pm

Brookfield End-of-mix Viscosity kP at 520C (1250F)

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-132

ANH-34

1200

1500

200

2900

1500

1700

1000

10000

33

(500 psia) 0594 (0234)

At 690 Ncm2 0757 (0298) (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

3-101

SB-138 SB-134

ANH-32 ANH-33

1200 1200

1500 1500

300 200

--- 100

2800 2800

1500 1500

1700 1700

1000 1000

10000 10000

Could not 21 measure

0630 (0248) 0615 (0242)

0810 (0319) 0879 (0346)

036 051

In summary the following approaches were investigated as methods

of achievins faster propellant burning rates and the goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncmd (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(1) HMX class (particle size)

(2) HMX level

(3) Dimethyl silicone as ballistic modifier

(4) Finer AN particle size

(5) Finer AP particle size

(6) Finer CU-0202 P particle size

(7) Ballistic modifier type and level

Of these only (1) (2) (5) and (7) proved to be effective approaches

to faster burning rates

c Hazards Classification The Naval Ordnance Station (NOS) did some of the initial propellant hazard classification testing to define the maximum level of HMX which could be used and remain a Class 2 propellant The basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB formulation selected for testing was an 88 wt total solids HTPB (R-45) formulation with 150

wt aluminum and 10 wt ammonium perchlorate Tests were planned on formulations with and without the ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P Table 3-43 summarizes results of these hazard tests These results indicated that 20 wt Class E HMX (15 Mm)in non-ballistic modified formulations gave propellants which marginally met card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards) AP particle size appeared to affect card gap test results No firm conclusions could be made regarding the ballistic modified formulations

This effort to define the maximum HMX level for a Class 2 ballisshytic modified propellant was continued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with AFRPL support Card gap tests made on the ballistic modified formulations reported in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 are summarized in Table 3-44 for convenience

General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Maximum level of Class A HMX is greater than 1000 wt and less than 1500 wt for a ballistic modified formulation

to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

(2) Maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1500 wt and less than 2000 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

3-102

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Ingredients wt

AN (unground) 430 430 4776 4279 390 3862

AP 45p m 100 - - -

AP 6 [m - - 995 995 - -

AP 4 [m - 100- - - - -

AP 2 4m - - - - 100 99

HMX 15 pm 200 200 1493 1990 200 198

Al H-12 150 150 1493 1493 150 1485

HTPB Binder 120 120 1243 1243 120 1287

AD - - - - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

CU-0202 P - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

Lab Safety Tests

Impact sensitivity mm 375 375 350 275 -

Friction kg (lb) gt444 gt444 gt444 gt444 -

(980) (980) (980) (980)

ESD J gt125 L125 125 gt125

Field Safety Tests

Card gap cards 55 to 65 to 0 60 to 35 to 55 to 60 70 - 65 50 60

Cap neg neg neg neg neg neg

3-103

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data (Continuation 1)

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Unconfirmed burning neg neg neg neg neg neg

Critical dia cm (in) gt64 gt64 gt64 gt64 lt89 lt89 (25) (25) (25) (25) (35) (35)

aX-ray of samples showed evidence of voids

Table 3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A with Class E)

Batch No HMX Card Gap

Wt Class Positive Negative Cards

SB-88 10 A - 2 0 - 1 -35

SB-83 15 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-84 20 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-87 10 E - 2 0 - 1 35

SB-85A 15 E - 32 - 2 35

SB-86 20 E 1 - 35 1 70

Class E HMX was selected because higher levels could be incorporated and remain a Class 2 propellant and because it gave the best ballistic properties

3-104

Two additional small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better define the maximum level of Class E HMX The Class E HMX was varied to the 1900 wt and 1700 wt levels for Batches SB-97 (HMX) and SB-98 (HMX) respectively Card gap sensitivity strand burning rates and relative castability were measured in both batches Table 3-45 shows the test results These tests indicated the maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1900 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

The 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches were made varying Class E HIX level to 1500 1700 and 1750 wt Card gap verification tests were made on these batches as shown later in Table 3-49 and test results are summarized in Table 3-46

Results of all the tests indicated the maximum level of Class E IHMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt for a ballistic

) modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

d Processing Studies The relative castability of propellant was observed on the small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) development batches and used in the selection of formulations for evaluation in the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches Brookfield end-of-mix and pot life tests were measured on all of the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches

The coarse Class A HMX (W149 gim) has a better particle size than the fine Class E HMX (15 - 20 pm) for solids packing Consequently the Class A HMX yielded propellants with better castability than the Class E HMX (Table 3-35) However Class E HMX was selected for all the scale-up batches because higher HMX levels could be used and ballistic properties were better (faster burn rates and lower pressure exponents) The level of MX was generally limited by Class 2 card gap constraints before castability became unacceptable

The lower viscosity plasticizer IDP yielded propellants with significantly better castability than the plasticizer DOA with only a slight loss in propellant burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) (Tables 3-38 and 3-39) Therefore IDP was the selected plasticizer

Replacement of the very coarse unground AN prills by coarselyground AN improved castability but reduced propellant burning rate Consequently the fraction of AN coarse ground was limited to 34 to maximize burn rate consistent with good castability (Tables 3-38 and 3-39

Replacement of the hammer mill ground (90 14m) AP by the fluid energy mill ground (63 jim) AP made the propellant more viscous but castability remained good (Table 3-40) This change significantly increased propellant burning rate and made the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) achievable (Fig 3-16) Therefore the fluid energy mill ground AP (63 pm) was selected for use when it became available

3-105

Table 3-45 ANHMXAPAHTPB-Formulation-z HMX Level (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating)

Ammonium nitratecoatse -ground (US Steel with anticaking c6ating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative Castability shy

-

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards

55 Cards

69 Cards

3-166

SB-97 SB98 ANH-15 ANH-16

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1900 1700

-2500 2700

1500 1500

1000 1000

Good Good

castability castability

0678 (0267) 0653 (0257)

0826 (0325) 0810 (0319)

028 030

1---positive

--- 1 positive

4 positive 2 negative

---

---

---

---

---

Table 3-46 JPL Hazard Test Data (Class E)

HMX Batch No

Wt Class

SB-89 (HMX) 15 E

SB-92 (HMX) 15 E

SB-106 (HMX) 175 E

SB-141 (H4X) 17 E

Positive

4

3

I

I

I

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

2

1

Card Gap

Negative Cards

6 0

10 35

2 0

5

--- 10

--- 15

--- 20

--- 27

3 30

5 35

--- 69

2 70

--- 35

--- 60

--- 61

--- 62

3 63

1 65

10 69

3-107

Replacement of the as-received CU-0202 P (21 pm) by attritor ground CU-0202 P (17 pm) did not significantly affect propellant castashybility Since this change increased burning rate by only 2 the asshyreceived (21 pm) CU-0202 P was selected Increasing the Cu-0202 P level from 200 to 300 wt significantly increased propellant viscosity making it less castable (Table 3-42)

Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were shown to signifishycantly improve castability and pot life with the ANAPAlHTPB propellant After checking to determine these materials were compatible and safety properties were adequate these pot-life extenders were incorporated into the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant

e Combustion Problems The problem of incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered speciflc impulse was addressed for the basic ANHMXAPAlHTBP propellant early in the program Two approaches evaluated to improve metal combustion I Land delivered specific impulse were

(1) Use of aluminummagnesium (AlMg) alloys

(2) Replacement of aluminum by magnesium

This work (by NOS) was done concurrently Mith the development -CV of the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant using conventional aluminum For convenience and clarity all of the NOS propellant development work done with the R-45 HTPB binder is reported and discussed in this section

Table 4-47 summarizes results of motor tests on ANHMXAPA1HTPB propellants with no ballistic modifiers Propellant formulation variations made were

(1) Total solids loading (87 to 88 wt )

(2) AP particle size (20 and 200 [m)

(3) HMX (Class E) level (20 and 30 wt )

(4) Metal level (15 to 20 wt ) shy

(5) Metal type (Al -and AlMg alloy)

The motors tested were either 4536-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors or 1814-kg (40-1b) charge (FPC) motors at sea level conditions Corrections to vacuum conditions with E = 685 were made as shown in Table 4-47 General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Motor burning rates at 483 Ncm2 (700 psia) were all in the range of 0356 to 0457 cms (014 to 018 ins) Ballistic modifiers are required to meet burning rate goal of 089 Ncm2 (035 ins) with a pressure exponent of

042

3-108

Table 3-47 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation

Specific Impulse

Propellant Data N-skg (s)

Burning rate at 483 Ncm

2

AP Vacuumd (700 psi)Motor Percent Particle Percent Percent

Typeb of AP Size m of HMX of Metal Type of Metal Delivered c = 685 cms (ins)

TPC 10 200 20 20 Aluminum 19476 (1986) 0356 (014)

20 19 AlMg (9010) 19760 (2015) 21633 (2206) 0381 (015)TPCa 200

TPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 21114 (2153) 22271 (2271) 0381 (015)

TPC 200 20 15 AlMg (9010) 20359 (2076) 20908 (2312) 0356 (014)

0 TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20398 (2080) 22467 (2291) 0356 (014)

TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23134 (2358) 0356 (014)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 21045 (2146) 23222 (2368) 0457 (018)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23242 (2370) 0457 (018)

FPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 19192 (1957) 21898 (2233) 0445 (0175)

00 wt total solids loaded propellant the remainder are 88 wt a87 bTPC are 4536-kg (10-1b) charge motor grains

CFPC are 1814-kg (40-1b) charge motor grains dAll motor tests were made at sea level Correction to vacuum conditi6ns was made as follows

fFdt me + Pa Aeta Vac Isp ms =

CF Creq

Correction to desired expansion ratio (c req) was done by multiplying vac Isp ms by C

CF C act

(2) The maximum vac Isp ms e = 685 obtained for this series of tests were 23242 N-skg (2370 s) This was obtained using 15 wt conventional Al 20 wt Class E HMX and 10 wt 20 jim AP The performance goal was vac Isp ms

E = 71 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(3) Reducing the AP particle size from 200 to 20 gm significantly improved vac Isp ms pound1177 N-skg (C12s)] and increased

burning rate

(4) Increasing the Class E HMX level from 20 to 30 wt signishyficantly increased vac Is ms 686 N-skg (-7 s) However propellant with 30 wt C ass E HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Increasing the metal level from 15 wt to 19 or 20 wt significantly reduced vac inpMs

(6) Replacement of the conventional aluminum by the AlMg alloy

(9010) appeared to give a small performance gain 392 N-skg (14 s) However the data was too limited to draw

firm conclusions

Propellant development effort was continued in an effort to achieve the performance goals The ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P were selected based on work done by JPL In addition finer AP particle sizes were selected based on the ability of this approach to achieve both improved performance and faster burning rates A Class E HMX level of 20 wt O was selected as the maximum to meet card gap requirements for Class 2 propellants based on card gap tests available at that time Table 3-48 summarizes motor test and theoretical performance results on the three ballisttc modified propellant formulations evaluated Formushylation 2A used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system 10 wt 55 Jim AP and 15 wt conventional aluminum Formulation 2Bused 1 wt AD as ballistic modifier 10 wt 10 gm AP and 15 wt AlMg alloy (9010) Formulation 2C used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system no AP and 15 wt magnesium The motor test results shown are all from 45-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors Since several formulation variables were varied between the three formulations it is not possible to isolate just the effect of metal type on propellant performance However the following general conclusions can be made from this work

(1) Formulation 2A which used conventional aluminum was the most promising candidate The vac Isp ms E = 684of 24144 N-skg (2462 s) met the goal of vac Isp Ms E = 71 -2403 N-sks (245 s) Burning rate achieved was 076 cms at 483 Ncm (030 ins at 700 psia) compared to the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with a pressure exponent _04

(2) Formulation 2B which used the AlMg alloy (9010) had a theiretical Isp (1000147) nearly the same as formulashy

tion 2A but Vac Isp msC = 684 was only 23252 N-skg(2371 s) In addition the burning rate was only 053

3-10

---

---

Table 3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured

Propellant No

Ingredients wt

AN

AP

HMX (15 pm)

Al

AlMg alloy (9010)

Mg

AD

CU-0202 P

R-45M

DOA

Theoretical Density gcm 3

(lbin3 )

Theoretical I

(Iooo147 )a Lcm 2 (s)

Measured Isp N-skg (s) at e = 55

2A

410

100 (55 fim)

200

150

10

10

80

40

17051

(00616)

24978

(2547)

22810 (2326)

Measured Vac Is N-skg (s) 24144 corr to E = 68 (2462)

Burn rate at 483 Ncm3

(700 psia) cms 076 (ins) (030)

2B 2C

420 510

100 (10 pm) --shy

200 200

150 --shy

--- 150

10 10

--- 10

100 80

20 40

16829 16027

(00608) (00579)

24958 23997 (2545) (2447)

21310 20113 (2173) (2051)

23252 22673 (2371) (2312)

053 041 (021) (016)

aStandard Conditions Chamber pressure of 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and expanded to 1 atm (147 psia)

3-111

cms at 483 Ncm2 (021 ins at 700 psia) for this formulation This data suggests that there was no performance advantage in using the AlMg alloy compared to conventional aluminum

(3) Formulation 2C which used magnesium as the metal had theoshyretical density and theoretical Isp (1000147) values significantly lower than formulation 2A The measured Isp and burning rates confirmed that this was-the least attractive of the three formulations

This work was ended at this stage of the program Good Isp efficiencies were being achieved with conventional aluminum using 10 wt fine particlesize AP and the selected ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P

f Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Four formulashytions were selected for scale-up evaluation and motor tests throughout the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant development effort Table 3-49 shows these four formulations Major changes in the formulations which were made as a result of the development effort on the small scale were

(1) dhange from DOAt lower viscbsity lasti6izdr IDP to improveshycastability

(2) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH to improve castability and pot life

(3) Reductions of the total ballistic modifier level from 400 wt to 300 wt to improve performance

(4) Selection of 17 wt ClassE HMX to achieve maximum performance and burning rate within the constraint of a Class 2 propellant

(5) Changes in the AN type to the higher density harder prill Monsanto AN to improve castability and burn rate control

(6) Change from hammer mill ground 8-9 gm AP to the finer fluid energy mill ground 63 Itm AP to achieve faster burning rates

All four formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into 5 x 10 motors BATES motors and small-scale samples The motors were successfully tested and results are summarized and discussed in Subsection g Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

3-112

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No SB-89 SB-92 SB-106 SB-141

Formulation No ANH-9 ANH-12 ANH-18 ANH-33

Batch size kg (ib) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Ingredients wt

R-45 polymer 6470 6582 6528 6397

DOA plasticizer 4613

IDP plasticizer --- 4647 4609 4615

)OA plasticizer (HMX coating) 0187 0153 0191 0185

Lirosperse 11 P 0113 0113 0113 0113

UOP-36 0040

DTBH --- --- --- 0040

IPDI 0617 0559 0559 0610

Ammonium dichromate (ground 7 Mm) 200 200 200 100

Copper chromite (as received 21 pm) 200 200 200 200

Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500

--- --- ---

---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil U S Steel Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

U S Steel Monsanto ---

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8-9 Am fluid energy mill ground 63 Am

Totals

Brookfield apparent viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) (Viscosity kPtime after curative addition)

End-of-mix

(Continuation 1)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

1500

4400

1000

10000

2208 2018 2128

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

1500

2900

1500

1000

10000

1609 2819 2929 4139 4149

SB-106 SB-141

ANH-18 ANH-33

104 (230) 113 (250)

1750 1700

2900 2800

1250 1500

1000 --shy1000

10000 10000

1008 708 1418 1318 2228 1527 2438 2137

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Nam 2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm (750 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

20 cards 27 cards 30 cards 35 cards 60 cards 61 cards 62 cards 63 cards

65 cards

(Continuation 2)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

0599 (0236)

0721 (0284)

027

6 negative 4 positive

10 negative

---

---

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

0503 (0198) 0617 (0243) 0691 (0272) 0775 (0305)

031

2 negative 3 positive 1 positive 1 positive 3 negative 5 negative

SB-106

ANH-18

104 (230)

0566 (0223) 0683 (0269) 0767 Co302) 0818 (0322)

027

SB-141

AHN-33

113 (250)

0544 (0214) 0622 (0245) 0719 (0283) 0805 (0317)

037

1 positive 1 positive 2 positive 3 negative

1 positive 1 negative

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type (Continuation 3)

SB-89 SB-92 SB-I06 SB-141Batch No

Formulation No ANH9 ANH-12 ANH-18 AHN-33

Batch size kg (lb) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Card Gap Tests (Contd)

69 cards --- --- --- 10 negative

70cards --- --- 2 negative 6 positive

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770 F) gcm3 (lbin3 ) 16746 (00605) 16359 (00591) 16691 (00603) 16663 (00602)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties

Sm 1cm 2 (psi) --- 49 (71) --- 64

em --- 19 --- 68

44 (64)--- 49 (71) ---Sb Ncm 2 (psi)

68eb --- 19 ---

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-49 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) End-of-mix viscosities and pot life improved as changes were made to IDP plasticizer use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH and Monsanto AN End-of-mix viscosity for batch SB-141 (HMX) was 7 kP at 520C (125 0 F) and pot life was greater than 37 h

(2) Faster burning rates were achieved as the HNX level was increased as the Gulf Oil AN was replaced by US Steel AN and then by Monsanto AN and as the hammer mill ground AP was replaced by the finer fluid energy mill ground AP

(3) Maximum strand burning rate achieved at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) was 081 cms (032 ins) with batch SB-106 (HMX)

(4) Strand pressure exponents on all four formulations were in the range of 027 to 037 Motor pressure exponents were lower than strand pressure exponents These low-pressure exponents are advantageous and meet the goal of lt042

(5) Card gap tests verified that the maximum level-of Class E HMX which meets the card gap requirements for a Class 2 propellant is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt

(6) Measured densities were in the range of 16359 to 16746 gcm3 (00591 to 00605 lbin3) for the four formulations

(7) The JANNAF uniaxial properties were oor with maximum stress values in the range of 44 to 49 Ncm (64 to 71 psi) and strain at maximum stress values in the range of 19 to 68

g Ballistic Evaluation ANHMXAPAIHTPB Systems The candidate alternate propellant containing HMX was evaluated in BATES motor firings at three levels of HMX 150 170 and 175 The 150 HMX formulation yielded the highest measured Isp Theoretical calculations had shown 170 to 175 to be optimum for maximum Isp Data from the BATES motor tests suggests that the actual optimum HMX level is somewhere between 15 and 16 This level of HMX in the propellant has been demonstrated to be within the Class 2 requirement The ballistic test data for the three HMX systems follows

(1) Formulation ANH-12 (150 HMX) Figure 3-17 shows the burning rate KN and pressure exponent for this propellant The BATES motor test data is summarized in Table 3-50

(2) Formulation ANH-39 (170 HMX) The ballistic evaluation test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-18 and Table 3-51

3-117

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104 61524 1 1 1

41016-

-2 2lt E0508-

0 KN -IA BATES MOTOR DATA KN

100 1 -1 0264 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 1000 10

0 0203_ 800 -8 0152 n 0310152 600 6

D 0102 - 400 -4

0051 - 200 - 2

I I I I 100025 1 -2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895 2

PRESSURE Ncm

Figure 3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92

3-n18

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No E-1466 E-1467

Test Date Nov 14 1975 Nov 26 1975

BatchChange No SB-921 SB-922

Nozzle Bt initial 4699 3764 cm (in) (1850) (1482)

Nozzle Dt final 4374 3571 cm (in) (1722) (1406)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 2981 2979 (6572) (6567)

Wp expended kg (ib) 29395 2940

(64806) (6482)

wt expended 986 987

Web thickness cm (in) 45789 4610 (18207) (1815)

tb (burn time) s 735 586

ta (action time) s 764 624

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 310 531 (450) (770)

PC max Ncm2 (psia) 386 731 (560) (1060)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 376 702 (545) (1018)

AP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26245 41056 (38066) (59547)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26779 42285 (38840) (61329)

3-119

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

Pa (3P dttb) Ncm2

(psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

It (1F dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion Ratio

E-1466

Nov 14 1975

SB-921

3511 (5179)

0630 (0248)

2253

2411

14507 (47594)

962

6193679 (1392395)

842675 (189441)

6198003 (1393367)

207921 (21202)

9249

237546 (24223)

70

E-1467

Nov 26 1975

SB-922

7006 (10162)

0787 (0310)

3511

3689

14983 k49156)

1006

6349309 (1427382)

1083497 (24358)

6559790 (147470)

220218 (22456)

916

235526 (24017)

70

3-120

PRESSURE psia

10 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 104 1524 I 6

1016 4

0508 0- 2

u KN A BATES MOTOR TESTS N

0254 - 1000 10lt 2 0 5x 10 MOTOR TESTS 8 - 1

0203800g- 8

Z 0152 n 037 600 6 z z

0102 400 4

0051 -- 200 2

I I1 -2

0025 69 138 345 690 1379 t 3447 6895

-PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 AHHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-141

3-121

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 PropellantTable 3-51

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

E-1490E-1489Run No

62376 62476Test Date

SB-1412 SB-1411BatchChange No

352684572Nozzle Dt initial cm (in) (1800) (13885)

3444Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 4531

(1784) (1356)

30133017W loaded kg (ib) (6651) (6643)

29332938Wp expended kg (lb) (6477) (6466)

97339738 wt expended

Web thickness cm (in) 4633 4643 (1824) (1828)

570747tb (burn time) s

638 ta (action time) S

794

Pc initialNem2 (psia) 345 683 (500) (990)

362 Pc maximum Ncm2 (psia) 752 (525) (1090)

Pc final Ncm2 N(psia) 324 649 (470) (942)

41665fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 25961 (37654) (6043)

ft dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26554 42802 (6208)(38514)

Pc ( P dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 347 731 (524) (1060)

3-122

Table 3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

r at P0 cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

F dt (tb) Ns (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

it cfF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion ratio (E)

De cm (in)

2Ae cm (in2 )

3-123

E-1489 E-1490

62376 62476

SB-1412 SB-1411

0620 0815 (0244) (0321)

2330 3989

2395 4077

143Q7 13540 (46940) (44421)

945 895

5979680 6258348 (1344286) (1406933)

8007 10978 (1800) (2468)

60958 64441 (13704) (14487) 202056 21388

(20604) (2181)

887 872

23183 22810 (2364) (2326)

716 716

12233 9426 (4816) (3711)

117522 69781 (18216) (10816)

(3) Formulation ANH-18 (175 HMX) The ballistic evaluation

test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-19 and Table 3-52

h Summary Two ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant formulations were developed that conformed to the program constraints for 3 wt HCl in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards classification These two formulations are ANH-12 (15 wt Class E HMX) and ANH-33 (17 wt Class E HMX) Table 3-53 summarizes and compares the properties of these two formulations versus the program goals Both formulations met the goals for pressure exponent and hazard classification but not the goal for burning rateor delivered vacuum I

The following summarizes the status of the ANH4XAPAlHTPB propellant development

(1) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic propellants

(2) Demonstrated the propellant is Class 2 with levels of Class E HMX up to 17 wt

(3) Demonstrated good castability and pot life greater than 37 h for formulations with 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(4) Successfully loaded and test fired 45-kg (10-1b) motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with formulations containing 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(5) Demonstrated a delivered vacuum Isp (E = 716) of 23752 N-skg (2422 s) with formulation ANH-12

(6) Demonstrated a BATES motor burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) and a pressure exponent of 037 with formulation ANH-33

(7) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

(8) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 150 and 170

11 Baseline PBAN Propellant Modification

The current baseline propellant system in the Shuttle SRM is

an 86 solids 16 aluminum PBAN propellant developed by the Thiokol Corporation This baseline propellant has a burning rate of approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) pressure In order to simplify the task of matching the burning rates of the alternate propellant and the PBAN baseline-propellant at 400Ncm2 (580 psia)

-3-124

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 103

1524 I 6

1016 - 4

A BATES MOTOR DATA 0508 - 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 20508 n =031

E -_ Ko

U IN

u- 0254 - -1000 10shy0203 -800 8

oD 0 z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0102 - 400 4

0051 200 2

0025 I I I0 - 2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Figure 3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-106

3-125

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HNX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

Nozzle Dt initial 4592 3543 cm (in) (1808) (1395)

Nozzle Dt final 4463 3388 cm (in) (1757) (1334)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3022 3023 (6662) (6664)

Wp expended kg (ib) 2956 2957

(6516) (6519)

Wt expended 9781 9782

Web thickness cm (in) 4615 4615 (1817) (1817)

tb (burn time) s 788 - 628

ta (action time) s 818 665

PC initial Ncm2 (psia) 248 483 (360) (700)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 352 717 (510) (1040)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 296 622 (430) (902)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 262146 42991 (380212) (62353)

fp dt (ta) N-scm 2 (lb-s) 265874 44074 (385619) (63924)

3-126

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HMX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 1471 3026 (4825) (9929)

r at Pc cms (ins) 0587 0734 (0231) (0289)

KN initial 2353 3953

KN average 2421 4131

C ms (fts) 14159 13741 (46425) (45083)

C efficiency 945 916

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 599055 6320560 (134673) (1420919)

F (fF dttb) N (ib) 7602 100645 (1709) (22626)

it (fF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s) 608823 6498885 (136869) (1461008)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 201478 215001 (20545) (21924)

Isp efficiency 8901 8868

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s) 231761 229240 (23633) (23376)

Expansion ratio 71 72

3-127

Table 3-53 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goal

Achieved Value

Alternate Propellant SB-92 (HMX) SB-141 (HMX)

Property Goal ANH-12 ANH-33 (15 HMX) (17 HMX)

Burning Rate at 089 0785 0813 690 Ncm 2 (035) (0309) (032) (1000 psia) BATES Motor cms (ins)

Pressure Exponent lt042 032 037 BATES motor

Delivered Vacuum 2403 23732 23183 Isp N-skg (s) (gt245) (2422) (2364)

71)

HCl in Exhaust 3

Meets Card Gap Requirement for Class 2 yes yes Class 2 required (negative (negative

at 30 cards) at 30 cards)

pressure it was decided to miodify the baseline propellant system to

meet a burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) This modified baseline applies to the dual propellant concept with the alternate propellant only It does not apply to the current Shuttle design requirements The 081 cms (03 ins) burning rate has been achieved and demonstrated in 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings The modified PBAN formulation is referred to in this report as the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

In modifying the basic PBAN formulation to meet the new burning

rate requirement a study was made of the effect on the burning rate of adjusting the Fe203 burning rate catalyst concentration and the

particle size blend of the AP oxidizer The desired burning rate was achieved with a formulation containing a biomodal blend of

Table 3-54 gives the final formulationoxidizer and 0 Fe203 the density and some burning characteristics of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

3-128

Table 3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend

Ingredients Wt

Ammonium perchlorate

200 pm 4900 10 pm 2100

Aluminum (Alcoa 1230) 1600

PBAN polymer 1204

DER-331 196

10000

Density 2500 (770F) = 17743 gcm3 (00641 lbin3 ) Burn Rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 081 cms (032 ins) Pressure exponent n = 0228 at I

345 Ncm 2 (00 psia) lt Pc lt 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

The burning rate of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant was verified by test firing several 5 x 10 motors using 45 kg (-10 lb) of propellant over a range of pressures Figure 3-20 shows the burning rates and corresponding Kn values The burning rate equation for this modified PBAN propellant based on the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings is

r = 00668 PC0228

3-129

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 8104

1524 6

1016- 4

0508 - 2

E K - 0 5x 10 MOTOR DATAshy

0254 - 1000 10 - 1

0203 n = 0228 800 8 z 0152- a = 00668 600 6

z z 0102 -400 4

200 20051

0025 _I _I I I 10-2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant)

Batch No SB-78

3-130

SECTION IV

UNWORKED AREAS

The program as originally planned included a significant effort in the development of the candidate alternate propellant physical propshyerties and checks to verify adequacy of candidate alternate propellant in the bipropellant grain The reduction of funds and scopeof the program left many of these tasks unworked If the alternate propelshylant concept for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Motor is pursued on another program then the following unworked areas should be worked

(1) Candidate alternate propellant physical property improvement

(2) Physical property characterization of unaged alternate

propellant

(3) Aging of alternate propellant

(4) Bipropellant interface bond unaged and aged

(5) Alternate propellant insulation interface bond unaged and aged

(6) Performance tests at altitude on candidate alternate propellant

(7) Motor tests with bipropellant grain

(8) Characterization of alternate propellant safety properties

The generally poor physical properties (primarily low strain) measured with both the ANAPAlHTPB and the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propelshylants are believed due primarily to the following causes

(1) Poor bond of the HTPB binder to the oxidizer particles

AN and HMX

(2) Crosslinking of the R-45 HTPB polymer through the double bonds caused by the acidity of AN

The approach planned to solve the poor bonding properties to the oxidizer particles was development of bonding agents for both the AN and the HMX Aerojet Solid Propulsion Company has demonstrated significantly improved physical properties in HMXAPAlHTPB propellants using polyureas as bonding agents Epoxides and polyureas were considered as candidate bonding agents for the AN Development of an acid scavengershywas considered as one of the approaches to the second cause of the poor physicals

4-1

SECTION V

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this alternate propellant development effort led to the following general conclusions

(1) It is technically feasible to minimize (lt_3 wt ) release of HCl above 1981 km (65000 ft)

(2) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants Formushylation ANH-12 is the best formulation developed to date

(3) Propellant with 17 wt Class E HMX meets card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(4) The basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant is the second most promshyising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants

(5) More than 1000 wt AP (gt3 HCI in propellant exhaust) is required in the ANAPAlHTPB propellant to meet the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) Formulation AN-71 with 2000 wt AP is the best formulation of this type developed to date

(6) The basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant (0 HCl) is the least promising candidate and probably not viable for achieving program goals

(7) A few of AP is essential to achieve good aluminum comshybustion

(8) Good castability and acceptable pot life were achieved with all three basic alternate propellants

(9) Additional development effort is needed to improve the physical properties of any of the candidate propellants

(10) The small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justify the potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradashytion

(11) The Monsanto phase stabilized E-2 AN is the preferred AN type because it has the best physical and handling propershyties at comparable cost compared to other AN types

(12) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 15 and 17

5-I

(13) With additional effort to optimize the formulation with regard to HMX level burning rate modifier level and oxidizer particle size the program goals ban be met with an ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant system

5-2

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM

SOLUBILITY OF MTN INI HYDROCARBON BINDER

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

MMORANDUM

From 2051BCTo 563 Via 205

Subj Solubility of MTN in hydrocarbon binder

1 A study was conducted to determine if MTN could be used in the R45 binder system for the NASA II propellant Dicetyladipate (DOA) would be used for a co-solvent

2 Figure 1 is a portion of a phase diagram for the MTN-DOA-R45 system Areas to the right of the curve are two phase Areas to the left of the curve are single phase The effect of temperature is also shown

3 For Figure 2 TP90B was used instead of DOA TP90B is not as effective a co-solvent as DOA

4 Beccause PPG-1225 (a polypropylene glycol) is soluble both in R45 afidMTN it also was invesrigated PFG-1225 has an advantage over DOA in that it is a reactive polymer and could contribute to the mechanical strength as well as providingco-solubility In Figure 3 a 5050 mixture of R45 and PGshy1225 was used for the starting material The solubility of MTN was determined Because PPG-1225 was not a very goodco-solvent DOA was added to enhance the solubility Areas to the right of the curve are two phase and areas to the left of the curve are single phase

5 For Figure 4 a starting material of 733 R-45 and 261 PPG-1225 was used DOA was used to enhance the solubility of MTN in the system

6 It was determined that adiponitrile was not solulle in R45 and therefore could not be used to replace DOA

7 It was determined that R-18 (a polyglycol adipate) was not soluble in R45 and therefore could not be used to replacePPG-1225

8 A sample from Figure 1 was cured with IPDI This will be used to evaluate the long term effect of the nitrate ester on the binder system

Enclosure (1)

A-i

OrNA PALi I

1

ROOM--H- 2 - I

____

-OM I H j 1 35 TEMPERATURE i TI I ItI

I I I I

25

I 3 0 Z _--_ _ _

i i ii

5 n

JI t II it

t - -- -

151 1 1H - IL I

i s _ _

I- III I I I

715

MTffN 20 2 P

Figure 1 So bility of DOA and TN plusmnn R-A5

A-2

- -

40

Lj

r -

11- f

- - iutm

30 HH

-4-

__I_ ____

~ I

~vt

_

[ I_ _ iJ

25 _ _ _

1 1kH I __ _ _ _- _ _ __ _ _

-H 71

- r T--- W 4J-W-L -- t ___ __

_ _ _ __ _ _

q----i- -

52

Figure2 Solubility o f P9BadM1 nR4

A-3

iplusmn II1 -shyI~hhiI4plusmnplusmnt~~t~ -

LL J-

rO zt_-il 4 it-T i -- - -- --a -- 4- shy

-- 4 tL ---L-C-- 1 ------ 13-F- --shy

--- 4 i

I _

I I --0F

L II

it I _ _ _- _ I___

I- - -- - - - ---- shy--_ _ __ __-L J _ _

I - i t1 hIIt -____I j I

-+4 4 1 - - - -I 7 _ -J shy______ _ 2---2--I_lc_

L L rI-T- r

4 -I - -t -- u

10 15 20 25 30 N

Figure 3 Solubility of DOA and LMN in 50 R-4550 PG-1225

A-4

1

35 f

it-lt-ir

II I II

303i-- h

4o

z5-11144_FLI Lb deg T - shy i

bull

25

- -

20

I

- i11 fI1I

Ii JIf j -shy

1 iifIF

I I j I

dstkj tji--4

-4--4 1

1

I0tLLIL t

I

1wi

IFI 4 I

r

iiL -shy plusmn4 4 - H _

64211

I

L3

M -44

t

-i-

__

5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 4 ltSolubility of DOA and MTN in 733 R-45267 PPG-1225

A-5

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

9 -Ifan 88 (or 84) solids loaded 6 polymeric binder system will give acceptable physical properties then the

following formulations should be investigated

R-45 PPG1225 DA MT__N Al AP 1HM AN

10 4360 - -40 20 15 20 44 16 36 24 15 10 20 43

5360 - 40 20 15 10 10 44 1-6 36 24 15 10 10 53

15 10 20 3960 - 66 34 44 16 62 38 15 10 20 39

To properly evaluate these they should be compared to

AL AP HMK ANR-45 DOA 5360 60 15 10 20

10 53100 20 15 20

A quick look at some of the theoretical results to date indishycate that these substit-utions of - MTNfor Inert polymer -may result ina gain of about18 pounds seclb in impulse and a gain of 0001 poundscu in in density

C EJOHNSON

Copy to 205 2051BC 2051C1 TDI

A-6

PU BLICATION79-29

Page 8: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

Sb tensile strength at break

SL opt sea level optimum

Sm maximum tensile strength

SRM solid rocket motor

ta action time

tb web burn time

tEWAT time at end of web action time

TMETN 111-trimethylolethane trinitrate

RAM-225 silicone oil in solvent (release agent)

UOP-36 N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine

UV ultraviolet

Nweight flow rate

W p Propellant weight

Zr Zirconium

p density

vi

ABSTRACT

This report documents the work done by the Caltech-Jet PropulsionLaboratory of NASA for the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA on a Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program The work was done as a Phase I follow-on effort to a previous Phase 0 feasibility study The program was designed to investigate three candidate propellant systems for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) which would eliminate or greatly reducethe amount of HC produced in the exhaust of the Shuttle SRM Ammonium nitrate was selected for consideration as the main oxidizer with ammonium perchlorate and the nitramine cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine (HMX) as secondary oxidizers The amount of ammonium perchlorate used was limited to an amount which would produce an exhaust containing no more than 3 HC1

Development work was carried out on three basic candidate propellantsystems (1) a mixed oxidizer of ammonium nitrate and ammonium perchlorate (2) a mixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate and HMX and (3) amixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate ammonium perchlorate and HMX All three systems contained 15 aluminum powder and had a total solids loading of 88 A urethane binder based on a hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene cured with a diisocyanate was selected as the binder system

The first and third propellant systems outlined above were developed to the point of successful scale-up and loading of 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes and successful test firing of 45-kg (10-1b) test motors and 32-kg(70-1b) BATES motors The second propellant system the ANHMX oxidizer system received only very limited development due to a out-back in both the funds and schedule time initially planned for this program All three propellants had satisfactory processing characteristics however at the 88 solids loading

The first and third propellant systems (the ANAP and the ANHMXAPoxidizer systems) were both also subjected to hazard testing and were demonstrated to conform to Class 2 hazard classification with HMX levels up to 17 wt in the HMX-containing propellant The second oxidizer combination system (the ANHMX) was not characterized as to hazards classification for the reasons mentioned earlier

The utilization of the low-Hl-producing alternate propellant was planned to be in ccmbinatidn with the current baseline PBAN propellantin a dual propellant design Therefore mutual compatibility between the two propellants was essential In order to lessen the severity of the burning rate requirement for the alternate propellant it was decided to decrease the burning rate specification for the PBAN baseline propellant to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) A modified baseline PBAN propellant formulation was therefore developed to conform to the lower burning rate specification It should be pointed out here that this modified baseline propellant system applies only to the dual propellantgrain design and does not relate in any way to the specifications of the present system being developed for the current Shuttle SRM The ballistic properties of the modified baseline PBAN propellant were demonstrated in several 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

vii

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION - 1-1

II SUMMARY- 2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPA1HTPB ------------------------- 2-2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXAlHTPB ------------------------ 2-2

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB --------------------- 2-2

D SYSTEM NO 4 MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE --------------- 2-3

III PHASE I PROGRAM -------------------------------------------- 3-1

A OBJECTIVE -------------------------------------------- 3-1

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS ---------------------------------- 3-1

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS ------------------------- 3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA ------------------------------------- 3-2

E PROGRAM APPROACH -------------------------------------- 3-2

F NOS PARTICIPATION ------------------------------------- 3-5

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE ------------ ---------------------- 3-5

H DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------- 3-6

IV UNWORKED AREAS --------------------------------------------- 4-1

V CONCLUSIONS ------------------------------------------------ 5-1

APPENDIX

A SOLUBILITY OF MTN IN HYDROCARBON BINDER -------------- A-i

Figures

3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB --------- 3-14

3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5 AP in ANAPAlHTPB --------- 315

ix

3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPAlHTPB -------------- 3-16

3-4 Specific Volume- of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature--------------------------------------- 3-26

3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ---------------------- 3-31

3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Gulf AN) ------------------- 3-39

3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-40

3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ---------------------------- 44

3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73 ---------------- 57

3-10 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74 ------ 3-58

3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTBP Propellants ---------------------------- 3-65

3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140 --------------- 74

3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-89

3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (HMX) Formulation ANH-9 ----------------------------------- 3-93

3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN ---------- 3-96

3-16 Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------ 3-98

3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92 -------------------------------------- 3-118

3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-11 ------------------------------------- 3-121

3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-l06 ------------------------------------- 3-125

x

3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant) Batch No SB-78 -------------------------------------- 3130

Tables

21 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ---------------------------------- 2-4

22 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-5

23 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-6

3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN ------------------------------------------- 3-7

3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN --------------------------------------- 3-9

3-3 Propellant Exhaust Composition ----------------------- 3-13

3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations ----------------------------------- 3-18

3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-20

3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-21

3-7 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received Properties ------------------------------------------- 3-23

3-8 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics -------------------------------------- 3-24

3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-28

3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P---------------------------------------- 3-32

3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-33

3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPA1HTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-36

3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-38

xi

3-14 Evaluation of-Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 42

3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 43

3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants -------------------------- 45

3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------- 48

3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------ 3-50

3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB

Propellants ------------------------------------------ 3-52

3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations --------- 54

3-21 BATES-Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant ---- 3-59

3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant ---- 3-61

3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Level Variations ----- 3-66

3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (2 Ballistic Modifier) ------------------- 3-68

3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation ---------- 3-70

3-26 BATES Motor Test Data Summary AN-71 Propellant ------ 3-72

3-27 AN4APAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goals --------------------------------------------- 3-75

3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests -Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------ 3-76

3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-77

3-30 ANHMXHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX) --------------- 3-79

3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------------ 3-81

3-32 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHNXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-82

xii

3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests ----------------------------------------shy 3-83

3-34 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) ------------------------------shy 3-85

3-35 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX) -----------------------------shy 3-87

3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)-----------shy 3-90

3-37 ANHNXADHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation ----------------------------- 3-91

3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX DOA Plasticizer)------------- 3-94

3-39 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX IDP Plasticizer)------------- 3-95

3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Particle Size Variation (MX) ------- ------------------------- 3-97

3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - BallisticModifier Particle Size Variation ------------------------------ 3-99

3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-101

3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data --------------------------------- 3-103

3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A With Class E)---------------------------------------- 3104

3-45 ANHMXAPAiHTPB Formulation - HMX Level (Class E HMX) ---------------------------------------- 3-106

t46-PL Hazard Test Data (Class E)----------------------- 3-107

M3-47 NOS Space ShuttleAlternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation ----------------------- 3-109

3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured -------- 3-111

3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

ANHMXAPHTPB Propellant Type ----------------------- 3-113

3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant ---- 3-119

3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-33 Propellant ---- 3-122

3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-18 Propellant ---- 3-126

xiii

3-53 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties-vs Goal ----------------------------------- 3-128

3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend --------------------------- --------------------- 3-129

xiv

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

This report presents results from the JPL study to investigatethe feasibility of developing an acceptable alternate propellant systemfor the Shuttle solid rocket motor (SEM) boosters based on the non-chlorine containing oxidizer ammonium nitrate (AN) The following basic criteria for this Phase 0 feasibility study were established by the NASA-MSFC

(1) A five-month feasibility study would be undertaken

(2) Any candidate propellants must conform to a hazards classishyfication of Class 2 as determined by card gap tests

(3) The propellant exhaust must not contain more than 3 HC Zero HCl was to be the goal

Following the above guidelines the JPL began a Phase Zero fiveshymonth feasibility program in September of 1974 (Ref 1) JPL was directedby MSFC to investigate four basic propellant systems mutually agreed upon by MSFC and JPL These four basic propellant systems were the following

(1) AN20 Albinder

(2) AN10 Albinder

(3) AN5 AP20 Albinder

(4) AN5 AP10 Albinder

Toward the end of the Phase 0 program the above four basic proshypellants had been developed to a point of scale-up of each formulation to 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes loading and test firing of 227-kg(5-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests Programresults at this point had demonstrated that

(1) Good processability of an 88 solids loaded ammonium nitrate propellant was possible (Previous to this workthe maximum solids achieved with ammonium nitrate systems was approximately 80)

(2) A few percent (5 to 10) of ammonium perchlorate as a co-oxidizer in the ammonium nitrate systems was essential to satisfactory aluminum combustion

(3) An aluminum content of 20 in the ammonium nitrate system was considerably above optimum for maximum delivered specific impulse

With these results serving as new guidelines a fifth formulation was developed and evaluated in BATES motor tests This propellant formulation

1-1

was an 88 solids formulation of the following composition 63 AN10 AP15 Al12 HTPB binder

The main conclusion drawn from the results of this five-month feasibility study was that with the necessary time and funds the develshyopment of an alternate propellant system for the Shuttle SRM based largely on ammonium nitrate as the oxidizer was feasible The fifth propellant described above was selected as a baseline candidate system and served as the basis for establishing the goals and criteria for a Phase I follow-on effort to this feasibility study

The concept for the utilization of the alternate propellant was a dual propellant solid rocket motor -The Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor would be manufactured containing the alternate low-HCl propellant first as an outer layer of propellant followed by an inner layer of the current PBAN propellant modified to the new burning rate requirement During a Shuttle vehicle launch the baseline PBAN propellant would burn for the first phase of Shuttle Booster operation At an altitude of approxshyimately 1981 km (65000 ft) the PBAN propellant would be expended and the burning transitioned into the low-HCl (less than 3 by weight of the exhaust products) alternate propellant The feasibility of a satisshyfactory transition from a propellant with an all-ammonium perchlorate oxidizer to one consisting primarily of ammonium nitrate oxidizer was also demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by successfully manufacshyturing and test firing a dual propellant BATES motor charge

1-2

SECTION II

SUMMARY

This summary is a general over-view of the Alternate Propellant Program A more detailed summary of each respective area of effort is included in the main body of this report The primary objective of the program was to develop a candidate alternate propellant for the Shuttle SRM boosters which would eliminate or minimize the HCl in the exhaust from the solid propellant boosters during operations above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude A set of program constraints was defined to serve as guidelines for the Phase I program effort Among the constraints was the requirements of a Class 2 hazards classification for any candidate propellant The detailed constraints have been outlined in the foregoing pages Along with these program guidelines specific goals were estabshylished that were as follows

(1) Propellant burning rate = 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) Propellant pressure exponent of the burning rate lt 042

(3) Vacuum delivered specific impulse gt 2402 N-skg (245 s) at an expansion ratio of 716

(4) Matched burning rates of the alternate propellant and the baseline PBAN propellant system at 400 Ncm2 (580 psia)

(5) HCl content of the propellant exhaust lt 3

Goal (4) also introduced the requirement of modifying the burning rate of the existing Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a burning rate requirement consistent with the foregoing goals for the alternate proshypellant The burning rate requirement for the modified Shuttle baseline propellant PBAN propellant was established to be 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) chamber pressure

Three basic propellant systems were defined as candidate systems to be developed within these constraints and guidelines The three systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

Based on the results from the Phase 0 program that preceded this Phase I program it was established that the aluminum content would be held constant at 15 wt in all formulations Also the AP content of the No 1 and No 3 system was to be 10 A status summary of each of the three alternate propellant systems and the modified PBAN Shuttle baseline propellant follows

2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPAlHTPB

This propellant system contains 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) and 15 aluminum powder The development has progressed through the static testing of 32-kg (70-1b) propellant charges in the BATES motor static testing being limited to sea level conditions A vacuum delivered Isp at an expansion ratio eof 70 corrected from the sea level data of 2281 N-skg (2326 s) has been demonstrated This measured value of Is is equivalent to 888 of the theoretical value at the test condiions A burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) of 0546 cms (0215 ins) with a pressure exponent of the burning rate of 0278 has also been demonstrated with BATES motor firings As can be seen the Isp and burning rate goals have not been attained whereas the pressure exponent goal has been exceeded by a considerable margin It is doubtful at this point whether the Isp or the burning rate goals can be achieved with this basic system within the present program conshystraints One way of achieving the ballistic goals would be to increase the AP content of this propellant To do so however would increase the HC content of the exhaust above that of the current exhaust conshystraint of not more than 3 wt of HC1

In order to meet the specific impulse and burning rate goals a propellant formulation containing 20 wt of AP was developed and tested first in 45-kg (10-1b) motors followed by two 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings The specific impulse goal of 2402 N-hkg (245 s) was attained with this propellant The burning rate at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) exceeded the 089-cms (035-ins) goal A burning rate of 097 cms (038 ins) was measured The pressure exponent measure was 048 which is higher than the goal However it is believed that this pressure exponent can be reduced The HC1 content in the exhaust at an expansion ratio of 716 is calculated to be 6 wt This 6 HC1 still represents an 80 reduction in the HC1 content from that of the baseline PBAN propellant system The-hazards classification of the ANAPA1HTPB system is Class 2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXA1HTPB

This system contains 15 aluminum also but no AP Due to a cutback in projected program funds however thedecision was made to discontinue the development of this system This decision was made very early in the development phase of this propellant and therefore no useful ballistic data is available at this time

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB

Of the three alternate propellant systems initially planned for development this system is the best candidate to date for meeting all the program goals Theoretical calculations showed that the maximum specific impulse for this propellant system was in the range of 170 to 175 HMX (Table 3-2) Therefore this system with three levels of HMX was developed scaled up to 113-kg (250-1b) mixes and loaded and test fired in 45-kg (10-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b)

2-2

BATES motor firing Of the three levels of HMX evaluated in motor firing the highest ISD was measured with the formulation containing 15 wt HMX showing that the experimental optimum HMX level- is somewhat less than 17 wt for this system The 15 and 17 wt HMX formulations were demonstrated to be Class 2 whereas the 175 wt HMX propellant was borderline Class 7

Preliminary results from Crawford Bomb burning rates showed a burning rate of 0950 cms (0374 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) for the 17 wt HMX formulation Time did not permit verifying this burning rate in motor tests prior to committing to the scale-up and loading of the 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors However indications -were that the 089-cms (035-ins) burning rate would be achieved in motor tests with 3 ballistic modifier in the formulation -- a cutback from the 4 in the other two HMX formulations In the interest of time a reduction in the ballistic modifier (a mixed burning rate catalyst) of 1 was made in the scale-up propellant batch from which the BATES motors were loaded Unfortunately this was too large a reduction in modifier and test results from firing the BATES motors showed a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) for the 17 wt HMX formulation (ANH-33)

The formulations of the five candidate alternate propellants and the modified PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 2-1 Table 2-2 lists the theoretical ballistic properties of the six propelshylants and also the HCi and A1203 (particulates) contents Table 2-3 summarizes the measured performance values as determined by BATES motor firings The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions with nozzle expansion ratios of 716 The measured sea level values were then corrected to vacuum values by the following equation

PeAe I vac ms =-I5 pact ms

D SYSTEM NO i MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE

The work statement of this Alternate Propqllant Program also called for modifying the current Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) while not changing the major ballistic properties such as I__ of the system This effort has been completed and the 081-cms (032-ins) burning rate met and demonstrated in motor firings The desired modification was accomplished by removing the iron oxide burningshyrate catalysts (Fe203 ) and adjusting the particle size blend of the oxidizer The burning-rate equation for this modified baseline is r = 00668 Pc0 228

A detailed discussion of the three candiate alternate propellant systems as well as the total program effort follows

2-3

Ingredients

Solids

AN

AP

HMX (Class E)

Al

Fe203

AD

CU-0202 P

Binder

HTPBe

PBANd

Table 2-1 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

TP-H1148a AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

86 88 88 88 88 88

-- 5900 5100 44o0 4300 4150

6960 1000 2000 1000 1000 1000

-- -- -- 1500 1700 1750

1600 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

040 b -- -- -- -shy

-- 200 -- 200 100 200

-- 200 200 200 200 200

-- 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

1400 -- -- -shy

aCurrent Shuttle baseline propellant also to be adjusted

bTo be adjusted

CCured with a diisocyanate (IPDI)

dCured with an epoxy (Der-331)

Table 2-2 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Parameter TP-H1148 AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Tf K 3471 2695 2845 2748 2765 2756

Te K

C ms (fts)

Isp0 N-skg (s)

2327

1371 (5155)

25723 (2623)

1563

1481 (4860)

24203 (2468)

1678

1568 (4949)

24624 (2511)

1570

1505 (4937)

24507 (2499)

1575

1513 (4965)

24634 (2512)

1571

1509 (4950)

24556 (2504)

U Is vac (a E 716)N-skg (s)

27135 (2767)

25684 (2619)

26115 (2663)

26007 (2652)

26144 (2666)

26066 (2658)

HC in exhaust 209 303 61 303 303 303

A1203 in exhaust 302 283 283 283 283 28

Table 2-3 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Ballistic Property

Program Goal

AN-25

Candidate Propellant Test Resultsa

AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

C ms (fts) - 1432 1460 1450 1431 1415

(4700) (4791) (4759) (4694) (4643)

C efficiency - 953 972 962 945 945

Isp vac at E = 716 N-skg (s)

_gt2403 (245)

22849 (2330)

24026 (2450)

23752 (2422)

23183 (2364)

23173 (2363)

Isp efficiency 888 923 912 887 8901

Burning rate cms at 690 Ncm2 (ins at 1000 psia)

gt_089 (035)

053 (021)

097 (0 38 )b

079 (031)

081 (032)

074 (029)

Pressure exponent n lt042 028 048 031 037 031

Hazard

classification 2 2 2 2 2 7 (marginal)

aTest data from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings at PC 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

bData point based on 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

SECTION III

PHASE I PROGRAM

A OBJECTIVE

The program objective of the Phase I program the results of which are documented in this report was to develop an alternate propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster motors which would eliminate or minimize the H1 in the exhaust from the motors

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS

The Phase I development effort was conducted within some very specific constraints These program constraints were

(1) Minimize the design impact on the present solid booster

(2) Eliminate or minimize Llt 3) the HC1 release from the booster motors during operation above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude

(3) Any candidate alternate propellant must confori to a Class 2 hazards classification

(4) The program was to be conducted within government as a contingency

(5) The payload schedule and cost impact of the Phase I effort on the Shuttle project were to be assessed concurrently

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS

Three basic pandidate propellant systems were selected for consideration in this development program These propellant systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

In addition to the above three completely new propellant systems a modification of the current baseline PBAN propellant was to be made This modification consisted of adjusting the burning rate of the PBAN propellant to a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) [The baseline PBAN propellant burning rate was approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)]

3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA

As has been stated the criteria for the Phase I program effort was established as a result of the Phase 0 feasibility study The scope of effort and propellant performance goals thus established were as follows

(1) Initiate the development of three basic candidate alternate propellant systems

(2) Modify the current Shuttle baseline PHAN propellant to meet

the new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins)

(3) The propellant performance goals were

(a) Burning rate = 689 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(b) Pressure exponent lt 042

(c) Delivered vacuum specific impulse at an expansion ratio of 716 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(d) Theburning rates of the candidate alternate propellants and the Shuttle baseline PBAN propellant should be matched at a pressure of 400 Ncm 2 (580 psia)

(e) HCI in the exhaust _ 3

(4) The development program was to include in addition to - the above

(a) Processing studies

(b) Physical property studies

(c) ropellant aging studies

(d) Propellant hazards classification testing

(e) Propellant performance testing

(f) Investigation of the compatibility between the alternate propellant and the current baseline PBAN propellant and between the alternate propellant and the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) insulation

E PROGRAM APPROACH

The following outline details the general approach taken in the investigation of the various aspects of this program

3-2

1 Theoretical Studies

() Maximize delivered specific impulse at 88 solids

(a) Aluminum content

(b) HMX content

(c) High-energy plasticizer content (TMETN)

2 Burning Rate Studies 089 cms (035 ins) Goal

(1) Particle size blend of oxidizer

(2) Investigate and compare catalyst type and concentration

(a) Fe203

(b) Ferrocene

(c) Milori blue

(d) CU-0202 P shy

(e) Inert plasticizer level (DOA)

(f) High-energy plasticizer (TMETN)

(g) HMX

(h) Zirconium powder

(i) Other

Burning rates to be determined via Crawford Bomb strand burning and 5 x 6 motor tests

3 Physical Property Studies

(1) Binder stoichiometry

(2) Plasticizer level and type

(a) Free plasticizer

(b) Internal plasticizer (chemically bonded)

(3) Degree of crosslinking

(4) Cure time and temperature

3-3

Evaluate properties Tensile strength

Elongation

Modulus

Hardness

Density

4 Processing Studies

(1) Process variables

(a) Mixer speeds

(b) Mix duration

(c) Ingredient addition sequence

(d) Other

5 Compatibility Studies

(1) PBAN propellant to alternate propellant bond

(a) As cured surfaces

(b) Machined surfaces

(2) Alternate propellant to insulation bond

6 Safety Hazard Tests

(I) Card gap

(2) Impact

(3) Auto-ignition shy

(4) Blast~ng cap

(5) Friction sensitivity

(6) Spark sensitivity

3-4

7 Aging Studies

(1) Propellant aging-physical properties

(a) Ambient temperature

(2) Propellant-propellant bond

(a) Ambient temperature

8 Motor Testing

(1) 5 x 6 motors - pressure only

(2) BATES motors - pressure and thrust

9 Shuttle Baseiine Propellant Modification

Adjust burning rate to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

F NOS PARTICIPATION

The Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head Maryland wLs funded by JPL to participate in certain aspects of the Alternate Propellant Program This funding of the NOS was a relatively low level of funding and designed to support the program through the investigation of certain very specific tasks The general areas of the NOS participation were

(1) Investigation of the solubility of the high-energy plasticizer TMETN in (a) R-45 HTPB polymer and (b) R-45 HTPB polymerDOA plasticizer

(2) Determine the limits of TMETN for a Class 2 propellant in an (a) all AN propellant system (b) ANAP system and (c) ANAPHMX system

(3) Investigation of the limits of HMX Ior a Class 2 inert binder propellent

(4) Hazards testing of candidate propellant formulations

(5) Investigation of HMX and AP particle size ef~eots and ballistic modifier effects on candidate propellant ballistics

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE

The Phase I effort of the Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program began April 1 1975 as an 18-month program The program schedule was later revised and lengthened to a 30-month program Much later in the program (April 1976) following several revisions to the program

3-5

schedule the planned scope of effort was reduced and the schedule cut to

conclude the program on June 30 1976 This reduction in scope and schedule

time became necessary due to a cut in the anticipated program funds

H DISCUSSION

Theoretical Studies

As has been discussed in the introduction to this report the Phase 0 feasibility study (Ref 1) results established the basis for

the Phase I effort Theoretical studies had been conducted during the Phase 0 work analyzing the effects of solids loading oxidizer ratios

binder composition etc on the thermoballistic properties of the proshy

pellant types under consideration Therefore at the start of the Phase I

program effort the guidelines for formulating the candidate alternate propellants to be developed were fairly well defined Consequently the

theoretical studies reported here involved only formulations with certain

constant parameters such as 88 total solids 15 aluminum and a binder based on plasticized HTPB

Table 3-1 gives summary tabulations of the primary thermoballistic properties of a number of candidate formulations containing AN AP and

HMX as oxidizers and the binder plasticized with the high-energy plasticizer

TMETN Iron oxide at the 1 level was included as a burning rate modifier The relevant Shuttle SRM baseline PBAN propellant properties are also shown in the table for reference As can be seen the formulation containing 25 HMX 10 AP and 25 TMETN plasticizer in the binder (12 HTPB binder) matches within 49 N-skg (05-s) specific impulse to that of the Shuttle baseline propellant That formulation however would be a Class 7 proshy

pellant and therefore could not be considered as a candidate

Table 3A2 shows the effects of varying the AP content the HMX conshy

tent and the type and content of the burning rate modifiers A combination

of ammonium dichromate (AD) and copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was selected

as the primary burning rate modifiers for this work Approximately two seconds of impulse difference is calculated for equal amounts of Fe203 and mixed AD and CU-0202 P (4 Fe203 versus 2 AD and 2 CU-0202 P) The calculations also show that for the 88 total solids system with 15 aluminum and 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) tpe theoretical optimum amount of HMX for maximum impulse is in the range of 17 to 175 The

experimental optimum HMX level for maximum delivered IsD however

appears to be something less than 17 wt This is eviaenced by the results from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests of propellants containing 150 170 and 175 HMX The measured ballistics of these formulations

are tabulated in Table 2-3 in the summary section of this report As will be seen in Table 2-3 the highest measured Isp with an HMX formulation

was with FormulationNumber ANH-12 which contains 150 HMX

These theoretical calculations referred to above were made using

a JPL computer program based on the minimization of free energy to

calculate both the equilibrium and frozen flow thermoballistic properties

of chemical compositions

3-6

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN

Formulationa Ballistics

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

AN AP HIX Al

TMETN in

Binder Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P T0 K C

ms (fts)

T (Sea Lcve Optimum) N-skg (s)

Vac 1 (c = 7)

N-skg (a)

Shuttle PBAN Baseline Propellantb(Density 17714 gcm 3 00640 lbin3) 3515 1578 (5176) 25752 (2626) 27136 k2767)

62 10 0 15 0 1 2825 1503 (4931) 24536 (2502) 25966 (2648)

62 10 0 15 10 1 2902 1511 (4956) 24674 (2516) 26095 (2661)

62 10 0 15 20 1 2977 1518 (4980) 24791 (2528) 26213 (2673)

62 10 0 15 25 1 2982 1521 (4991) 24850 (2534) 26272 (2679)

62 0 10 15 20 1 2910 1526 (5005) 24870 (2536) 26321 (2684)

52 0 20 15 20 1 2973 1546 (5072) 25174 (2567) 26645 (2717)

47 0 25 15 20 1 3005 1557 (5108) 25321 (2582) 26900 (2743)

62 0 10 15 25 1 2916 1529 (5016) 24929 (2542) 26380 (2690)

52 0 20 15 25 1 2978 1550 (5084) 25233 (257 ) 26704 (2723)

47 0 25 15 25 1 3010 1561 (5120) 25380 (2588) 26860 (2739)

52 10 10 15 10 1 2964 1532 (5028) 24968 (2546) 26419 (2694)

42 10 20 15 10 1 3027 1554 (5100) 25272 (2577) 26753 (2728)

37 10 25 15 10 1 3658 1565 (5136) 25419 (2592) 26909 (2744)

52 10 10 15 20 1 3039 1540 (5052) 25095 (2559) 26519 (2706)

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN (Continuation 1)

Formulationa Ballistics -

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier TMETN Is (Sea Vac L

in C Level Optimum) (E = 7 AN AP HMX Al Binder Fe203 AD CU-0202 P Tc K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

42 10 20 15 20 1 3102 1562 (5124) 25399 (2590) 26870 (2740)

37 10 25 15 20 1 3134 1573 (5160) 25546 (2605) 27037 (2757)

52 10 10 15 25 1 3044 1543 (5063) 25154 (2565) 26596 (2712)

42 10 20 15 25 1 3107 1565 (5135) 25448 (2595) 26929 (2746)

37 10 25 15 25 1 3138 1576 (5171) 25595 (2610) 27086 (2762)

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

bThe Shuttle baseline propellant has 16 Al 86$ total solids

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN

Formulation ballistics

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids)

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Pc = 690 Ncm

2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Moaifier

DensitygcM3

(lbin3 ) AN AP HMX Al

PropellantFormulation

No Fe2 0q AD CU-0202 P To K

C

Ms (fts)

Is (SeaLevel Optimum)

N-skg (s)

Vac ISp(E 7)

N-skg (s)

16634 (00601) 62 10 - 15 1 2728 1500 (4920) 24468 (2495) 25950 (2647)

0 16717 (00604) 61 10 - 15 2 2716 1490 (4887) 24320 (2480) 25801 (2631)

16800 (00607) 56 15 - 15 2 2778 1497 (4913) 24438 (2492) 25929 (2644)

16911 (00611) 51 20 - 15 2 2839 1505 (4938) -24566 (2505) 26046 (2656)

16994 (00614) 46 25 - 15 2 2904 1512 (4962) 24674 (2516) 26164 (2668)

17105 (00618) 41 30 - 15 2 2969 1519 (4985) 24791 (252b) 26282 (2680)

17188 (00621) 36 35 - 15 2 3032 1526 (5007) 24899 (2539) 24390 (2691)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 4 2692 1469 (4820) 24016 (2449) 25478 (2598)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 (AN-25) - 2 2 2695 1481 (4860) 24203 (2468) 25684 (2619)

16745 (0n605) 51 20 - 15 - 2 2841 1513 (4965) 24693 (2518) 26194 (26741)

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 1)

Pl1si~sFormulitiona

Theoreticl Equilibrium Flow Calculations = Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant IS (Sea Vac I gcm3 Formulation C Love Optimum) (c = 7) (lbin 3 ) AN PP HmX Pi No Fe20q AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg ()

16911 (00611) 51 20 15 (AN-71) 2 2845 1508 (4949) 24624 (2511) 26115 (266-)

16828 (00608) 51 20 15 1 1 2841 1511 (4957) 24654 (2514) 26145 (2666)

17160 (00620) 44 10 15 15 4 2748 1492 (4895) 24320 (2480) 25811 (2632)

17216 (00622) 42 10 17 15 4 2756 1495 (4906) 24360 (2484) 25850 (263b)

- ) 415 10 175 15 4 2581 1500 (4921) 25850 (2636)

) 40 10 190 15 4 2794 1495 (4906) 257b2 (2629)

39 10 200 15 4 2776 1490 (4888) 25723 (2623)

17049 (00616) 44 10 15 15 (ANH-12) - 2 2 2748 1504 (4937) 24507 (2499) 2007 (2652)

17077 (00617) 42 10 17 15 2 2 2754 1508 (4947) 24546 (2503) 26056 (2657)

17049 (00616) 4 10 17 15 (ANH-33) 1 2 2765 1513 (4965) 24634 (2512) 26145 (2666)

L

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 2)

BallisticsFormulations

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant is (Sea Vac Is gcm3 Formulation C Level Optimum) M (ibin3 ) AN AP HMX Al No Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

16828 (00608) 44 10 17 15 - - 2779 1525 (5005) 24781 (2527) 26311 (2683)

16994 (00614) 44 10 17 15 - 2 2784 1518 (4981) 24723 (2521) 26243 (2676)

16911 (00611) 44 10 17 15 - 1 1 2778 1522 (4994) 24752 (2524) 26272 (2679)

17077 1509 (4950) 24556 (2504) 26066 (2658)(00617) 415 10 175 15 (ANH-18) - 2 2 2757

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

2 Exhaust Products

The exhaust compositions of the five candidate propellants listed in Table 2-I in the report summary and that of the Shuttle PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 3-3 The exhaust species are shown as weight percent of the total exhaust and the exhaust composition is that at the exit plane of the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 716 calculated as the equilibrium composition

3 Combustion and Burning Rate

Two problems which were anticipated and confirmed as problems early in the Phase 0 program were low combustion efficiency and low burning rates of the aluminized ammonium nitrate propellant These subjects are discussed individually in the sections covering the different propellant systems However a few brief general comments will be made here

It was demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by way of 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings that a few percent of AP was essential in the ammonium nitrate propellants in order to effect satisfactory combustion of aluminum An 88 solids 15 Al ammonium nitrate formulation containing no AP was test fired in several 227-kg (5-1b) test motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors In each case large amounts of aluminum slag remained in the motors after firing Molten aluminum could be seen being ejected through the nozzle during the test firings Greatly improved combustion resulted from incorporating 5 AP in the formulation The incorporation of 10 AP resulted in virtually zero slag remaining in the motor Therefore 10 AP was selected as a standard for this Alternate Propellant Program The three photographs of BATES motor tests (Figs 3-1 to 3-3 containing 0 5 and 10 AP respectively in the formulations) show rather dramatically the effect of AP on the combustion The glowing streams in the 0 and 5 AP firings (greatly reduced in the 5 AP test however) are produced by molten aluminum

A second technique investigated as a combustion improvement techshynique was the incorporation of zirconium metal powder into the propellant The basis for this idea was due to the fact that zirconium powder has a much lower ignition temperature than that of aluminum powder and has a relatively high heat of combustion The idea was to take advantage of this lower ignition temperature of zirconium powder to facilitate the ignition and burning of the aluminum by igniting and burning and thereby supplying sufficient added heat to the system to more effectively ignite and burn the aluminum This technique however did not demonstrate any real improvement in the measured performance but rather a decrease and was therefore not investigated beyond the initial BATES motor test firings

3-12

Table 3-3 Propellant Exhaust Comsition

Propellant PBAN AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Solids 86 88 88 88 88 88 AP 6960 10 20 10 10 10 HMX - - - 15 17 175

Tel K 2327 1563 1678 1570 1575 1571

MoI Wt of Products 2756 2309 2360 2285 2275 2281

Speciesa wt

AlCl 00094 - - - -AIC10 00086 - - - shy

-A1C12 00098 - - -

AICI3 00053 - - - shy-AlHO2 00012 - - -

Cl 02961 - 00007 - -

CO 232928 189953 191619 256367 264700 267944 39486 61302 58679 46105 44899 42773CO2

Cr203(L) - 10020 02090 10020 06050 10020 Cu - 00038 00184 00044 00044 00044 CuC(L) - 14543 11840 14513 14475 14513 CUM - 00891 04188 00901 00940 00901

-Fe 00134 - - -

FeC12 05998 00621 00621 00596 00583 00583 H 00191 00001 00002 00001 00001 00001 H2 18804 29663 27301 32744 32941 33221

aCl 209284 30346 60149 30357 30346 30357 HO 00321 - 00002 - -

H20 101499 154534 157204 95971 91721 86539 85862 221739 203436 225998 228954 226707N2

NH3 - 00905 00003 00005 00005 00005 NO 00018 05780 - - shy

0 00005 shy02 00003 - - shy

A1203(C) 302097 283418 283418 283418 283418 283418

aConcentrations less than 1 x I0-5 moles100 g exhaust are omitted

L = liquid C = crystalline

3-13

ft

iI

Figure 3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

Imm

Figure 3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5$ AP in ANAPA1HTPB

go

Figure 3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

A third technique investigated was that of using a chromate-coated aluminum powder in place of the standard aluminum powder This techniquealso failed to produce increased combustion efficiency of the aluminum in the propellant

Specific burning rate subjects are discussed in the discussions of the different propellant systems however some general comments will be made here As can be seen in Table 3-2 the proper selection of a burning rate catalyst must be based on more than burning-rate considerations when a rigorous effort is made to maximize specific impulse As can be seen a significant difference is calculated for the theoretical Isp between incorporating the different burning rate modifiers at the same concentration Also the modifier used can have a strong effect on the physical properties of the propellant

4 Physical Properties

This effect of specific ingredients on the physical properties of an ammonium nitrate system arises from the fact that chemical reactions other than the normal curing reactions between the prepolymer and the curing agent enter into the overall curing reactions In most compositepropellant systems the physical properties are determined largely -in addition to binder type and solids loading by the degree of crosslinkingand completeness of reactions with available cure site6 In the ammonium nitrate system however it appears that free protons produced in the system react with the double bond in the prepolymer (HTPH) backbone causing crosslinks at these sites Ammonium dichromate appears to contribute in a greater way to this crosslinking at the double bonds than some of the other burning-rate modifiers investigated On the other hand the AD subtracts less from the calculated Isp The formulating and development of an AN system therefore is complicated by these considerations The physical property problems are greatly complicated Nonconventional techniques must be found and employed in the physical property considerations in order to develop satisfactory control of adequate physical properties

5 High-Energy Plasticizer Studies

One of the approaches investigated on the program was use of high-energy plasticizers td achieve higher delivered specific impulse propellants A review of available nitrate ester plasticizers indicated that TMETN (111-trimethylolethane trinitrate) was the most promising candidate This selection was made on the basis of overall considerations of compatibility performance cost and availability Theoretical performance calculations on some typical propellant formulations with 20 wt TMETN are shown in Table 3-4

Propellant development work on this effort was done by NOS (NavalOrdnance Station Indian Head Md) Two basic formulations were inshyvestigated one with no ammonium perchlorate and one with 5 wt ammonium perchlorate A polyester (R-18) binder was selected and initial development work was done at the 82 wt solids level with 1200 wt TMETN Small

3-17

Table 3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations

Formulation 1-A

Ammonium nitrate 360 Aluminum 180 R-18 60 HMX 100 TMETN 200 Ammonium perchlorate 100

1000

Density gcm3 17300 (lbin3 ) (00625)

Flame temperature 34314 K (OF) (5723)

Vacuum specific 27115 impulse N-skg (s) (2765) E = 716

Pc 483 Ncm2

(700 psi)

Weight percent 278 HC1 in exhaust

1-B

310 180 60 100 200 150

1000

17411 (00629)

3481 (5806)

27155 (2769)

417

1-C 1-D

410 410 180 180 60 60 50 -

200 200 100 150

1000 1000

17217 17244 (00622) (00623)

3410 3430 (5678) (5714)

26988 26880 (2752) (2741)

278 416

3-18

mixes were made to check ingredient compatibility and propellant laboratorysafety properties Results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-5 along with the formulations These tests indicated that the ingredients were compatible and safety properties were adequate The two formulations were then scaled up into larger batches and card gap samples were loaded and tested Both formulations were uncastable so that the card gapsamples had to be hand packed The card gap test results are shown in Table 3-5 and suggest both formulations meet the card gap requirementsfor Class 2 propellant (lt 70 cards) However these results may be biased to give lower card gap sensitivity because of voids in the samples

Four additional formulations were then evaluated at the reduced solids level of 74 wt to improve propellant castability The polyester(R-18) binder system was used and TMETN level was held constant at 20 wt The variations made with these four formulations were variations in the levels of HMX AP and AN All the formulations were eastable and card gap samples were prepared and tested on each The details of the formulations and card gap test results are summarized in Table 3-6 General conclusion from this work was that for this propellant systemwith 20 wt TMETN a maximum level of 5 to 10 wt HMX can be used and meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

Work with the polyester (R-18) binder system was terminated and shifted to the HTPB (R-45) binder system when the early experimentalwork indicated that program goals would probably not be achieved with the polyester (R-18) Initial tests by NOS showed the solubility of TMETN (also referred to as MTN) in R-45 at 210 C (700F) was less than 1 wt They then conducted cosolubility studies with other plasticizersComplete details of these studies are shown in Appendix A Summary conclusions from this effort are as follows

(1) R-18 and adiponitrile are not soluble in R-45M

(2) DOA is more effective as a coplasticizer than TP90B and PPG-1225

(3) Maximum theoretical performance gains possible by replaceshyment of DOA with TMETN within solubility limits are about 176 N-skg (18-s) impulse and 0028 gcm 3 (O001 lbin 3 ) density

A decision was made to terminate further work with TMETN at this point in the program Primary reason for the decision was that the small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justifythe potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradation

6 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrates

An evaluation of available ammonium nitrate (AN) types was made to provide a basis for selection of the AN in development of the propellant formulations Ammonium nitrate is the major oxidizer used in all

3-19

Table 3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations with TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids)

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder TMETN Aluminum HMX Ammonium perchlorate Ammonium nitrate

Initial card gap tests

0 Cards 35 Cards 50 Cards

70 Cards

Laboratory safety tests

Impact mm (3 consecutive positive values 5-kg weight)

Sliding friction kg (ib) 24 ms (8 fts)

Electrostatic discharge- J

(5000 V)

NOS SCC-74-69 NOS SCC-74-074

600 600 1200 1200 1800 1800 2000 1000 - 500

4400 4900

10000 10000

-pos

pos pos pos neg neg

150 -125 150 200

gt-435 (gt_960) 435 ( 960) A35 (gt_960)

gt435 (gt960)

2125 125 gt125 L125

3-20

Table 3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids)

Formulation No NOS Mod I NOS Mod II NOS 1C NOS ID

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder -600 600 600 600 TMETN 2000 2000 2000 2000 Aluminum 1800 1800 1800 1800 HMX 2000 2000 -500 Ammonium perchlorate - 500 1000 1500 Ammonium nitrate 3600 3100 4100 4100

10000 10000 IbO00 10000

No 8 Blasting Cap neg neg -

Test

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards -shy pos 40 Cards pos neg

(42 cards) 50 Cards pos pos neg 60 Cards neg 65 Cards pos 70 Cards pos neg neg 75 Cards pos -

80 Cards pos - -

85 Cards - Ipos and I neg - -

90 Cards 2 pos - -

100 Cards pos I pos and I neg - -

112 Cards pos - -

120 Cards pos neg - -

121 Cards 1 pos and 2 neg - -

123 Cards neg - - -

125 Cards neg 150 Cards neg

3-21

three of the basic alternate propellants ANAPAlHTPB ANHMXAlHTBP

and ANHMXAPAlHTPB

Some of the problems associated with making propellants with AN are

(1) Low true density of AN (1725 gcm3 ) which limits solids loading for processable propellants

(2) Large size and hollowness of unground as-received prills

(3) Hygroscopicity of AN and particle agglomeration

(4) Slow burning rates

(5) Low specific impulse

(6) Volumetric changes with crystal phase changes

The following three types of AN were selected for evaluation

(1) Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated

(2) U S Agri-Chemicals industrial with anti-caking agent

(3) Monsanto industrial E-2 phase stabilized

These three were selected because they are generally representative of what is currently available from industry Table 3-7 compares the as-received properties of the three AN types Table 3-8 compares some of the processing characteristics of the three AN types

The Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated has the advantage of having no additives that generally tend to reduce propellant specific impulse However this AN has a soft prill that breaks readily and is very hygroscopic Both the unground and ground materials agglomerate severely even in controlled environments These difficulties in controlling particle-size distribution with this type AN pose real problems in achieving and reproducing maximum specific impulse and burning rate in processable propellants Cost of this type AN is higher than the other two types because it is a specialty product

The U S Agri-Chemicals industrial AN has a 043 to 077 wt coating of anticaking agent on the prills The coating consists of 90 talc and 10 Petro-Ag It keeps the material free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture In addition it makes a harder prill which does not break readily Good control of particle-size distribution is possible with this type of AN Consequently processable propellants are achievable with reproducible burning rates and delivered specific impulse

3-22

Oc Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received PropertiesTable 3-7

Vendor

ltC7

Type

Appearance

Total nitrogen

Approx assay

Moisture (when manufactured)

to Additive

Screen size (US Sieve Series)

Loose bulk density gcm3

3)(lbft

Prill Density gcm3

Approx cost kg (lb)

aphase stabilized

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticakang Agent)

White prills

None

254 (115)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

industrial (Coated with Anticaking Agent)

White free-flowing spheres

(prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

025 wt min

043 to 077 wt $ coating bagent

00 wt max retained on No 6 50 wt $ max through No 6 and on a No 8 940 wt max through No 6 and on No 20 10 wt max through No 20

154

154 (7 0 )d

Monsanto Agricultural Products Co

inoustrial E-2

Pearly white free-flowing

spheres (prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

05 wt min

04 to 06 wt E-2 additive c

10 wt max retained on No 6 100 wt through No 14

09611 (60)

161

a157 (71

b90 tale and 10 petroleum agent eMgo according to US Patent 3030179

taxesdBulk costs - carload quantities typically 54431-kg (60-ton) minimum Does not include freight or

Table 3-8

Property

Handling characteristics to unground

Particle size after tumble drying unground

Grinding characteristics particle size after coarse grinding in Raymond hammer mill with 4000-rpm hammer speed 160-rpm feed speed 032-cm (18-in) screen

Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticaking Agent)

Soft prill breaks easily Very hygroscopic and agglom-

erates severely

104 to 1000 pm

480 pm (avg)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

Industrial (Coated with Anttcaking Agent)

Fairly hard prill does not break readily Remains free

flowing with reasonable pro-tection from moisture

840 to 3360 pm

2200 pm (avg)

140 um (avg)

Monsanto AgraculLural Products Co

Industrial E-2 (Phase-Stabilized)

Very hard and dense prill does not bread readily

Remains free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture

1410 to 3360 pm

2000 pm (avg)

2bO pm (avg)

The Monsanto industrial E-2 phase-stabilized AN has 04-to 06 wt E-2 additive This material is MgO which pbase stabilizes-the ammonium nitrate according to U S Patent 3030179 (assigned to Monsanto Company) Figure 3-4 shows the specific volume of Monsanto E-2 AN and of AN that has not been phase stabilized versus temperature The solid line is for the Monsanto E-2 AN and the dotted line is for the AN that has not been phase stabilized Note that the volumetric changes associated with Phase III have been eliminated in the phase-stabilizedMonsanto E-2 AN Comparing Monsanto E-2 AN with the other types inTable 3-7 and 3-8 the following conclusions can be made

(1) Monsanto E-2 AN has a higher prill density than U S Agri-Chemicals AN (161 gcm3 versus 154 gcm3 )

(2) Because Monsanto E-2 is a very hard anddense prill normal handling and tumble drying does not significantly break prills Particle-size distribution remains in the range of 1410 to 3360 pm with an average size of about 2000 m

(3) Coarse grinds of Monsanto E-2 AN have an average particle size of about 280 pm which is in the size range (200 to 400 pm) for better fit with the other solids

(4) The Monsanto E-2 AN remains free flowing in both the ungroundand ground states with reasonable protection from moisture

(5) Cost of the Monsanto E-2 AN in large bulk quantities is 157 1kg (71 [lb) which is comparable to other AN types which are not phase stabilized

ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant batches have been made with all three of the AN types discussed above In general results were as follows

(1) The propellant made with Monsanto E-2 AN had lower endshyof-mix viscosities and longer casting lives than the proshypellant made with the other two types of AN

(2) Burning rates with the Monsanto E-2 AN were either comparable or slightly faster

Based on these results Monsanto E-2 AN was selected as the preferred AN type for the following reasons

(1) It is easily processed with good particle-size control It remains free flowing in both the unground and ground states with reasonable protection from moisture The prill does not readily break with normal handling or tumble drying

(2) It has typically a 5 higher prill density This lowers propellant volumetric solids loading which improves castability

(3) This AN can be ground to more optimum size distributions for improved solids packing

3-25

065

063 063

1

- BOWDEN

MONSANTO E-2 -

I

PHASE ILr

E

uS 061 IIshy

0 -

CU 059

057

055

-100 -50

Figure 3-4

0 50 100

TEMPERATURE degC

Specific Volume of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature

150 200

3-26

(4) It does not have a talc anticaking coating which appears

to accelerate propellant viscosity buildup

(5) Phase stabilization minimizes volumetric changes with varying

temperature due to phase changes

(6) This AN gives comparable or slightly faster burning rates

(7) It has a comparable price to other AN types in large bulk

quantities

7 ANAPAlHTPB ( 3 Wt HC1 Exhaust)

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished

on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraint of lt 3 wt HCl in the propellant exhaust

This constraint is met by limiting the AP level in the formulation to

( 10 wt

a Burning Rate Studies Initial burning rate studies were

made to evaluate different ballistic modifier types and levels with

the basic 88 wt solids ANAPAlHTPB propellant The selection of

the ballistic modifiers was limited to those that were

(1) Commercially available

(2) Proved successful for use within rubber base propellants

(3) Non-migrating

(4) Reasonably priced

selectedAmmonium dichromate (NH4)2Cr207 at the 2 wt level was

as the primary ballistic modifier for the following reasons

(1) AN is the major oxidizer

(2) AD has been used successfully for years with AN propellants

Other ballistic modifiers were used in conjunction with the AD to enhance

burning rate and attempt to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms

(035 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) Table 3-9 shows the formulations evaluatedand the cured strand burning rates obtained

The propellant formulations were mixed as small (1000 to 1500 g)

batches using a 38-liter (1-gal) vertical Bramley mixer The propellant

was cast into RAM-225 released molds that formed individual propellant

strands and was then cured After cure the propellant strands were tested

in a conventional Crawford Bomb strand burner A subsequent study

discussed in the section on ANUNXAPAlHTPB propellant showed that

3-27

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Formulation wt Crawford Bomb Data

rb cms (ins)

Batch No

Total Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m)

Other Ballistic Modifier

Oxidizer Blend CoarseFine

At 345 Nem2

and 210C (500 psia and 700F)

At 690 Ncm2

and 210C (1000 psia and 700 F)

o

30

31 55

88 6o

59 57

10 15 2

2 2

Fe20Q

Fe203 Fe203

1

2 4

4555

442558 425575

0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0279 (0110)

0538 (0212)

0475 (0187)

0432 (0170)

32

33

49

34

60

59

57

59

2

2

2

2

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite Fe203

1

2

4

1 1

4555

442558

425575

442558

0462 (0182)

0564 (0222)

0472 (0186)

0493 (0194)

0627 (0247)

0759 (0299)

0671 (0264)

0737 (0290)estimated

50 57 2 Copper Chromite Fe203

2 2 425575 0511 (0201) 0699 (0275)

54 57 2 Copper Chromite FeF 3 (unground)

2 2 425575 0485 (0191) 0648 (0255)

35 6o 2 Milor Blue 1 4555 0399 (0157) 0625 (0246)

56 57 2 Milori Blue 4 425575 0371 (0146) 0528 (0208)

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

a Crawford Bomb Data

Formulation wt rb cms (ins)

At 3115 Ncm2 At 690 Ncm2

0 0and 21 C and 21 C

Batch Total Other Ballistic Oxidizer Blend (500 psia (1000 psia 0

No Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m) Modifier CoarseFine and 70 F) and 700 F)

W 36 88 60 10 15 2 Ferrocene 1 4555 0381 (0150) 0569 (0224)N)

42 60 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 1 4555 0429 (0169) 0594 (0234)

53 57 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 4 425575 0356 (0140) 0490 (0193)

41 60 2 Iron phthshyalocyanine 1$ 4555 0358 (0141) 0490 (0193)

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

the strand burning rates may have been biased to give faster rates by the RAM-225 release agent However the burning rate trends and ranking of the ballistic modifiers do not appear to be biased by the RAM-225

Figure 3-5 shows strand burning rates plotted at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) versus the second ballistic modifier level for the ballistic modifier systems evaluated General conclusions from the study were as follows

(1) The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) and 2 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) gave the fastest burn rate

(2) Increasing the combined level of burning rate modifiers to greater than 4wt of theformulatibn decreased the burn rate

Although the attritor-ground (I m) ferric fluoride (FeF 3) gave a faster burning rate than CU-0202 P at the 1 wt second ballistic modifier level FeF 3 was not selected because it would have contributed HF in the propellant exhaust A preliminary selection of the ballistic modifier system was made for subsequent work The system selected was 2 wt $ ground AD and 2 wt as-received CU-0202 P

Achievement of the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2

(035 ins at 1000 psia) had not been accomplished by simple manipulation of the ballistic modifier type and level Consequently propellant developshyment effort was continued toward this goal along the following approaches

(1) Finer particle size ballisticmodifiers

(2) Finer particle size AN

(3) Greater level of fine AN

(4) Finer particle size AP

(5) Use of potassium perchlorate

Two approaches were evaluated to reduce ballistic modifier particle sizes to sizes smaller than those achievable with a hammer mill They were dry ball milling and attritor grinding The dry ball milling approach was unsuccessful with AD and CU-0202 P because they packed into a hard cake Attritor grinding of AP and FeF 3 to particle sizes smaller than 1 m has been successfully demonstrated within the solid propellant industry This method uses an attritor mill to grind material suspended in Freon between zircoa beads Attritor grinds were successfully made with AD and CU-0202 P and the particle-size reductions accomplished are summarized in Table 3-10

3-30

1016 I1

STRAND BURN RATES POSSIBLY BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

040

EU

04 E

z 0762

FIRST BALLISTIC MODIFIER 200 wt GROUND AD

FeF3 GROUND TO I

030

K c

0 10

uIX FeF 3 (UNGROUND)

Z

0 58

IRONO PHTHALOCYANINE

MILORI BLUE

x FERROCENEFe 20 3

020 zS

ln

0254 I I 0 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SECOND BALLISTIC MODIFIER LEVEL wt

Figure 3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic

Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-31

Table 3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P

Screen Analysis Micromerograph Material 50 wt pt 50 wt pt

Particle Size pm Particle Size pm

AD

As received =575

Attritor ground (21 h) - 44

CU-0202 P

As received 21

Attritor ground (21 h) shy 17

Small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of the smaller ballistic modifier particle sizes on strand burning rates Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-11 General conclusions from this study are as follows

(1) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 1 wt FeF 3 fine ground AN and 9-gm AP reducing the FeF 3 particle size from a coarse as-received to attritor-ground 1 pm material increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2

(1000 psia) from 0594 to 0668 cms (0234 to 0263 ins) (-12)

(2) In an IDP-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P coarse ground AN and 63- AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm did not significantly change strand burning rate

(3) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (0208 to 0219 ins) ( 5)

(4) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (2208 to 0218 ins) (5)

3-32

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-l05 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized 40 IDP

plasticized

1200

-

1200

-

-

1200

-

1200

1200

-

1200

-

1200

-

Aluminum MD 105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground

72 pm Attritor ground

44 gm

200

-

200

-

200 -

200bull

200

-

200

-

-

200

Ferric fluoride As received Attritor ground 1 pm

100 -

-100

- -

- -

-

-

Copper chromite As received 21 pm

Attritor ground 17 pm

- 200

-

200

-

200

-

-

200

200

-

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine Ground Gulf

Oil Fine ground

Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

3150 -

2850

-

3150 -

2850

-

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 1000 9 [Lm

FEM ground 63 pm -

1000

-

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000 1000

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-33

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-105 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 690 Ncm 2 0429 0465 0422 0419 0424 0439 0437 (100 psia) (0169)(0183)(0166) (0165) (0167) (0173) (0172)

At 345 Ncm 2 0594 0668 0467 0475 0528 0556 0554 (500 psia) (0234)(0263)(0184) (0187) (0208) (0219) (0218)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 047 053 014 018 030 033 033

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

In summary reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burning rates for the selected ballistic modifier system

As discussed earlier particle-size control of the unground Gulf Oil AN was a problem because of breakage of the prills during drying and handling A partial approach to this problem was to screen the unground Gulf Oil AN into a selected size range after drying and handling Smallshyscale propellant batches (1000 to 1500 g) were made using Gulf Oil AN and strand burn rate tests were performed on these batches to evaluate

(1) The effect of screened +60 to -32 mesh (250 to 570 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(2) The effect of screened +32 to -16mesh (570 to 1190 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(3) The effect of varying the fraction of AN as fine ground on castability and burn rate

The fine ground AN was ground using a hammer mill with the following settings

9600 rpm hammer speed 80 rpm feed speed

0033-cm (0013-in) screen

3-34

Fisher sub-sieve average particle size for this material was typically 20 pm The fraction of AN as fine ground was limited to less than 55wt to keep propellant processable in the small scale batches (Larger batches typically have better castability) Table 3-12 and Fig 3-6 summarize test results General conclusions from these results were

(1) All batches had poor relative castability

(2) Using unscreened unground Gulf Oil AN (broad particle-size distribution with a significant portion of fines) and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 483 to 542 wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) from 0505 to 0577 cms (0199 to 0227 ins)

(3) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0462 cms (0199 to 0182 ins)

(4) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 300 to 483

wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (100 psia) from 0419 to Q462cms (0165 to 0182 ins)

(5) Changing the coarse fraction from screened +60 to -32 AN to screened +32 to -16 mesh AN reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0404 cms (0165 to 0159 in s)

Changing the type of ammonium nitrate type from Gulf Oil to Monsanto phase stabilized AN eliminated the problem of prill breakage but did not improve castability even with IDP plasticizer as shown by Batch SB-101 in Table 3-12 The slower burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponent with Batch SB-101 compared to Batch SB-64 is due to use of IDP as the plasticizer A small-scale propellant batch SB-102 was made with a coarse ground Monsanto AN to evaluate the effect of this material on castability and burn rate The coarse ground was made using a hammer mill with the following setting 4000 rpm hammer speed 160 rpm feed speed and 032-cm (18-in) screen

Screen analysis indicated this coarse ground AN had an average particle size of approximately 280 pm Propellant castability using this material was excellent but strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was reduced from 0485 to 0442 cms (0191 to 0174 ins) 9 The burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) was not achieved by varying AN type AN particle size or fraction of AN fine ground

The effect of replacing hammer mill ground AP by fluid energy mill ground AP on propellant burning rate was evaluated in a series of five small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) batches Three batches were made using DOA plasticizer and fine ground Gulf AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 55 pm Two batches were made using IDP plasticizer and coarse ground Monsanto AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm Results of this study are shown in Table 3-13 and Fig 3-7

3-35

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized40 IDP

plasticized

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 to 72 gm

Copper chromite as received

im21

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Screened (+60-32) Gulf Oil

Screened (+32 to -16 mesh) Gulf Oil

Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil

Fine ground Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground9 gm

Fraction of AN fine ground (wt )

Relative Castability

SB-64

AN-25

1200

-

200

200

1500

3050

-

-

2850

-

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-75

AN-63

1200

-

200

200

1500

2700

-

--

3200

-

1000

542

Poor

SB-48

AN-40

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

4130

--

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-48A

AN-40A

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

-

4130 -

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-61

AN-53

1200

200

200

1500

-

3050

-

2850

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-101 SB-102

AN-65 AN-65A

- -

1200 1200

200 200

200 200

1500 1500

- -

- -

- -3050 3050

- -

2850 -

2850

1000 1000

483 -

Poor Excellent

3-36

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-64 SB-75 SB-48 SB-48A SB-61 SB-101 SB-102

Formulation No AN-25 AN-63 AN-40 AN-40A AN-53 AN-65 AN-65A

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm 2 0366 0414 0277 0284 0338 0419 0351 (500 psia) (0144)(0163)(0109) (0112) (0133) (0165) (0138)

At 690 Ncm2 0505 0577 0419 0404 0462 0485 0442 (1000 psia) (0199)(0227)(0165) (0159) (0182) (0191) (0174)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 047 049 060() 050 045 022 032

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

These results indicated the following

(1) Using DOA plasticizer fine ground Gulf AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 55 gm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0508 to 0635 cms (0200 to 0250 ins)

(2) Using IDP plasticizer coarse ground Monsanto AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0442 to 0467 cms (0174 to 0184 ins)

(3) Use of the finer (55 to 63 pm) fluid energy ground AP did not increase pressure exponent

Maximum burning rate achieved using fluid energy ground AP was 0635 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0250 ins at 1000 psia) compared to the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

3-37

Table 3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-62 SB-64 SB-66 SB-102 SB-103

Formulation No AN-25 AN-25 AN-56 AN-65A- AN-65B

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 wt DOA plasticized 40 wt IDP plasticized

1200 -

1200 -

1200 -

-

1200 1200

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as

received 21 [m 200 200 200 200 200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 -1500

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil Coarse ground Monsanto

3050

-2850 -

3050

-2850

-

3050

-2850

-

3050 -

2850

3050 -

2850

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 9 1m Fluid energy ground 55 pm Fluid energy ground 63 pm

1000 --

1000 -

-

1000 -

1000 -

-

-

1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Ratesa

cms at 251C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)- 0368 (0145)

0366 (0144)

0457 (0180)

0351 (0138)

0422 (o166)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0508 (0200)

0505 (0199)

064 (025)

0442 (0174)

0467 (0184)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 049 049 048 032 014

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-38

0762 I I I 1 030 11nSTRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY -Z o BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

0E E

COARSE FRACTION HADBROAD SIZE DISTRIBUTION a Z o

WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTION OFFINES

oC 10I0 Ishy

lt 0508 020 w

zz Z 0-COARSE FRACTION WAS 04 n SCREENED TO OBTAIN

NARROW COARSE DISTRIBUTION (+60 -32

o Z

I-MESH) WITH NO FINES

-shy

0254 20

I 30

I 40

I 50

I 60

010 70

FRACTION QF FINE GROUND AN wt

Figure 3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (Gulf AN)

3-39

1270 050

E

U

o 0

I-

C

BURN RATE GOAL o

I-

D Co0

0762 FINE

DOA

GROUND AN AND

PLASTICIZER

030

0D 0o z

V) 0508-

COARSE GROUND AN AND IDP PLASTICIZER 020

0381 I I I I I 015 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) jm

Figure 3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size

ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-40

A small-scale propellant batch SB-65 was made to determine whether the burning rate could be increased significantly by replacing the ground AP by ground potassium perchlorate (KP) Strand burn rate tests were made on this batch and compared to the reference Batch SB-64 as shown in Table 3-14 Strand burning rate at690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was increased from 0505 to 0531 cms (0199 to 0209 ins) 5 but pressure exponent increased from 047 to 065 This approach was dropped because of the minimal increase in burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and the significant increase in pressure exponent

b Combustion Problems One of the problems in using ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer in solid propellants is the incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered specific impulse This problem was studied in the Phase 0 effort and partially resolved by modifying the formulations to include 10 wt AP Other approaches considered on this program to improve aluminum combustion and performance were

(1) Use of aluminum and zirconium mixtures Zirconium has

lower ignition temperature than aluminum

(2) Use of dichromate-coated aluminum powder

(3) Use of aluminummagnesium alloys

(4) Use of plasticizers containing more oxidizer to obtain a more favorable oxidizerfuel ratio

Some increases in propellant burning were also considered possible with several of these approaches Because of limited time and fundsonly the first two approaches were evaluated to any extent with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant Results of these studies are covered in the following discussion

A small-scale propellant batch SB-104 was made using the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum to evaluate the effect on strand burning rates Results of these strand burning rate tests are compared to strand burning rates of reference Batch SB-103 in Table 3-15 The replacement of the uncoated MD-05 aluminum by the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0467 to 0424 cms (0184 to 0167 ins) 9 No motors were loaded and tested to evaluate the effects of this dichromate-coated aluminum on delivered specific impulse

3-41

Table 3-14 Evaluation of Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-64 SB-65

Formulation No AN-25 AN-55

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 gim 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 [Lm 1000 -

Potassium perchlorate hammer mill ground 30 gm - 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0366 (0144) 0340 (013

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0505 (0199) 0531 (0209

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 049 065

Six small-scale propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of AlZr mixtures on propellant castability and strand burning rates Three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt Fe203 The other three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P Zirconium powder level was varied at 0 250 and 500 wt of propellant formulation (0 16 and 13 replacement of Al) Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-16 and Fig 3-8 General conclusions were as follows

3-42

Table 3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-103 SB-104

Formulation No AN-65B AN-65C

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 (uncoated) 1500 -

Aluminum H-5 (dichromate coated) - 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250C

(ins at 771F)

At 345 Ncm 2 (500 psia) 0422 (0166) 0366 (0144)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0467 (0184) 0424 (0167)

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 014 022

3-43

1016 1 1 1 1 040

-rl STRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY E BIASED BY RAM-225 (3 MOLD RELEASE

E

0762 030 0

CD 00 0 0 I---shy

100 CU-0202 P + 200 AD

z 0508 - 020 D

z z

- 100 Fe20 3 + 200 AD

0254 I I I -010 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ZIRCONIUM (REPLACING ALUMINUM) wt

Figure 3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium

ANAPA1HTPB Propellants

3-44

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Ingredients wt

iHTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1250 1000 1500 1250 1000

Zirconium powder --- 250 500 250 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 [m 200 200 200 200 200 200

Fe203 as received 100 100 100

Copper chromite as received --- - --- 100 100 100

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 gm 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)e

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0272 (0107)

0462 (0182)

0376 (0148)

0307 (0121)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0538 (0212)

0452 (0178)

0399 (0157)

0627 (0247)

0546 (0215)

0455 (0179)

3-45

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 390 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 052 058 058 044 054 057

apoor relative castability bUncastable

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

(1) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to make the propellant less castable on the 38-liter (1-gal) batch scale

(2) The 200 wt AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P ballistic modifier system gave faster burning rates than the 200 wt AD and 100 wt Fe203 ballistic modifier system

(3) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to reduce propellant strand burning rate and increase strand pressure exponent

Based on this study and the study of ballistic modifiers a formulation using 500 wt zirconium was selected for s6ale-up and evaluation in BATES motor firings Results of these additional tests are discussed in Section III-H-d and III-H-e

c Proc6ssing Studies Limited funds and time did not allow for any systematic study of processing variables to optimize processing conditions However processing methods and conditions were optimizedbased on experience Some of the specific approaches used for propellant mixing were

(1) Careful selections of order and manner of ingredient addition to disperse and wet solids

(2) Elevated temperatures prior to curative addition to wet and disperse solids and reduced temperatures after curative addition to minimize cure reactions

3-46

(3) Extended vacuum mix times prior to curative addition to

wet and disperse fine- solids

(4) Controlled moisture of ingredients and of the process

The effects of AN particle sizes and fraction of AN fine ground on propellant castability were discussed in conjunction with the burning rate studies

Antioxidants are commonly used with the R-45 HTPB binder to improve propellant pot life and aging stability The combination of UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-p-phenylene diamine) and DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone) appears to give synergistic effects and is very effective in extending pot life Protech 2002 (UTC proprietary metalshydeactivating antioxidant) and others of the Protech series have the additional advantage of being metal scavengers They tie up the transishytion metals that catalyze radical oxidations Four small-scale propellant batches were made initially to evaluate these pot-life extenders Table 3-17 summarizes results of this initial study The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH gave some improvement in propellant castability with no significant effect on propellant burning rate No improvement in propellant castability was observed with use of the Protech 2002 The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH was selected as the pot-life extender system to be used for additional evaluation

DOA was chosen initially as the plasticizer for use with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant It is one of the most commonly used plasticizers and its low cost is an advantage IDP has a lower viscosity and freezing point than DOA but is more costly than DOA Six smallshyscale propellant batches were made and tested to compare the two plasticizers DOA and IDP under the following three conditions

(1) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level without pot-life extenders

(2) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

(3) At the 50 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

Results of the study are summarized in Table 3-18 General conclusions from the study were

(1) The IDP consistently gave better castability than the DOA

(2) Use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH improved castability with both of the plasticizers DOA and IDP

(3) No major improvement in castability was observed by increasing the plasticizer in binder level from 40 to 50 wt

3-47

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1192 1177 1185

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl-hydroquinone) - 00 004 -

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshyphenylene diamine) -

Protech 2002 (UTC

proprietary antioxidant) -

004

-

004

015

-

015

Aluminum MD-105 1000 1000 1000 1000

Zirconium powder 500 500 500 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63ttxz 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm 1000 1000 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-48

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at

0770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 0323 0295 0282 0269 (500 psia) (0127) (0116) (0111) (0106)

At 690 Ncm 2 0475 0467 0483 0460 (1000 psia) (0187) (0184) (0190) (0181)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 057 066 078 078

aUncastable bpoor castability

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

The effect of plasticizer type on propellant burning rate was not conshyclusively determined from this study Two out of the three cases indicated that the IDP gave slower strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) To resolve this question two additional propellant batches SB-100 and SB-101 were made where the strand burn rate test results could not possibly be biased by the RAM-225 release agent The batches were formulated to have 40 wt plasticizer in binder and to use the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH Results of tests on these two batches are shown in Table 3-19 These results indicated the change from DOA to IDP plasticizer reduced the strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0544 to 0485 cms (0214 to 0191 ins) ( 11)

Based on results of these processing studies the following propellant selections were made for additional evaluation in scale-up batches and motor tests

(1) DOA plasticizer

(2) 40 wt plasticizer in binder level

(3) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH each at the 004 wt level

3-49

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

Formulation No AN-57a AN-58b AN-25 0 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 592 592 720 720 712 712

DTBH (25 dishytertiary butyl hydroquinone) 004 004 - - 004 004

UOP-36 (N-phenylshyN-cyclohexylshyP-phenylene diamine) 004 004 - - 004 004

DOA 600 - 480 - 480 -

IDP - 600 - 480- - 480

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 Am 200 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 [Lm 200 200 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate screened ungroundGulf Oil +60 -32 mesh 2700 2700 - - - -

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil - - 3050 3050 2700 2700

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 3200 3200 2850 2850 3200 3200

Ammonium perchloshyrate hammer mill ground 9 jim - - 1000 1000 1000 1000

3-50

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ammonium perabloshyrate fluid energy mill ground 55 pm

Total

Strand Burning Ratesd cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2 (500 to 1000 psia)

aGood castability

SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

AN-57a AN-58b AN-250 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

1000 1000 -

10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

0376 0371 0366 0478 0414 0353 (0148) (0146) (0144) (0188) (0163) (0139)

0572 0533 0505 0658 0577 0500 (0225) (0210) (0199) (0259) (0227) (0197)

059 053 047 046 049 048

bExcellent castability 0Poor castability dpossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-51

Table 3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-100

-AN-25a

SB-101

AN-65b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 712 712

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshy

P-phenylene diamine)

004

04

004

004

DOA 48o -

IDP - 480

Aluminum IAD-I05 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 72 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm

Total 1000

10000 1000

10000

Strand burning rates cms at 25degC (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

0406 (0160)

0544 (0214)

0419 (0165)

0485 (0191)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

041 022

apoor castability bFair castability

3-52

Results of these additional tests are discussed in sections on scale-up and ballistic evaluation

d Scale-up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Two propellant formulations were selected for evaluation in scale-up batches [946 liters 104 to 113 kg (25gal 230 to 250 lb)] and motor tests Formulation AN-25 was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum and 4 wt ballistic modifier Formulation AN-59 was identical except one-third of the aluminum (5 wt of the propellant formulation) was replaced by zirconium powder Details of the formulations are shownin Table 3-20 Both formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section e The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples from each batch

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rate

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-20 General conclusions from these tests were as follows

(1) The end-of-mix viscosities and pot lives on both batches were excellent There was no degradation of castability with zirconium as suggested by the small-scale batch studies

(2) Strand burning rates were slightly faster at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) for the formulation with zirconium The smallshyscale studies had suggested slower burning rates for formulashytions containing zirconium

(3) Both formulations had burning rateswhich were well below the burning rate goal 0478 and 0513 cms at 690 Ncm2

(0188 and 0202 ins at 1000 psia) versus goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(4) Card gap tests on both formulations were negative at 0 cards and therefore met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Density of the propellant containing zirconium was slightly higher than the propellant containing just aluminum as expected

3-53

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

Propellant Type Batch Number Formulation Number Batch Size kg (ib)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized)

UOP-36

DTBH

Ammonium dichromate grodnd 63 pm

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Aluminum powder

Zirconium powder

Ammonium nitrate Gulf Oil unground Gulf Oil fine ground

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 pm

Total

Brookfield apparent viscosities kP at 0C (OF)

Time after curative addition

07 h (end-of-mix) 13 h 34 h

Strand burning rates at 251C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) At 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

ANAPAlHTPB SB-73 AN-25

113 (250)

1192

004

004

200

200

1500

-

3050 2850

1000

10000

60 at 55 (130) 73 at 57 (135) 95 at 55 (130)

0257 (0101) 0373 (0147) 0462 (0182) 0478 (0188)

3-54

ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74 AN-59

104 (230)

1192

004

004

200

200

1000

500

3050 2850

1000

10000

41 at-57 (-135) 50 at-57 (-135)

0224 (0088) 0353 (0139) 0437 (0172) 0513 (0292)

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations (Continuation 1)

Propellant Type ANAPAlHTPB ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74Batch Number SB-73

Formulation Number AN-25 AN-59 Batch Size kg (ib) 113 (250) 104 (230)

Card Gap Tests 10 negative 10 negative at 0 cards at 0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) 16497 16630 gcm3 (lbin 3 ) (00596) (00601)

JANNAF Uniaxial properties Sm Ncm 2 (psi) 90 (130) 88 (127) era 47 48

Sb Ncm2

eb (psi) 90 (130)

47 88 (127)

48

(6) JANNAF uniaxial properties for both batches were comparable

Maximum stress Sm was in the range of 88 to 90 Ncm2

(127 to 130 psi) and strain at maximum stress em was in

the range of 47 to 48 The low strain values are adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

e Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlHTPB System (3 HCl in

Exhaust) The five candidate alternate propellants listed and defined

in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were all scaled up to processing of 113-kg (250-1b)

batches loaded into BATES motors and test fired The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions using nozzles manufactured

and cut to actual expansion ratios of 716 Both chamber pressure and thrust were measured The tests were conducted at ambient temperature

conditions with propellant charges conditioned to 250C (770F) The

measured sea level Isp swas corrected to a vacuum Isp by simply adding the

back-pressure correction The following equations define the pertinent ballistic parameters

PC _f tEWAT Pc Edttb

J t at 075 Pc init

3-55

-- t EWA T F = dt tF=ftat 075 PC initFtt

Ab gPc KN= - = -

At crp

-- f ta C g At PdtWp g PcKN rp

It Isp ms = shywip

fta itr Fdt

to

PaAeIsp vac ms =Isp MS + -

Wp expended

(ta + tb)2

Figure 3-9 shows the burning rate of the formulation number AN-25 the ANAPAlHTPB propellant system with 10 AP Table 3-21 is a tabulashytion of theBATES motor test data from the test firings of batch number SB-74 of formulation AN-25

f Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlZrHTPB BATES motors were also loaded and tested with the modified ANAPAlHTPB formulation

containing 5 Zr powder a 15-pm powder The burning rates determined in BATES motors are shown in Fig 3-10 and the ballistic data from the BATES motors tests are tabulated in Table 3-22

3-56

PRESSURE psic 4

102 8 103 2 4 6 102 4 6 1524 i 1 1 1 6

A BATES MOTOR DATA 1016 4

n 0278

E --U 0508 -

2

KN shy

(D 0254 - 1000 1o0 1

z 0203- 800- 88

z

0152 - 600 6

0102 - -400 4

0051 I 200 2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73

3-57

2540 2032

1524

102

-

2 4

PRESSURE

6 103

I

psa

2 4 6 104 10

BATES MOTOR DATA 6

1016 n 0277 4

0508 2

O

S0254-0229 0152 -

KN

1000 800600600

I0-866

z

a

6102 - 400 4

0051 I I I 1 200 1 2

69

Fig 3-10

138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74

3-58

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test data

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

W loaded kg (lb)

Wp expended kg (lb)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-sem2 (lb-s)

E-1453 E-1455

9-15-75 9-23-75

SB-732 SB-733

3376 3109 (1329) (1224)

3393 3119 (1336) (1228)

25225 2525 p(55611) (5567) 25028 2501

(55177) (5513)

9922 9904

3840 3855 (1512) (15178)

811 742

881 797

425 576 (616) (835)

493 634 (715) (919)

459 590 (666) (856)

38844 45878 (56339) (66541)

3-59

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 PropellantTable 3-21 (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s)

p (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia)

r at PC cms

(ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s

(Ib-s)

F (JF dttb)6 N (lb)

It (f F dt) (ta)

N-s (lbrs)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

In vac ins N-skg M

E-1455E-1453

4723240196 (68504)(58300)

61834790 (8968)(69147)

05180483 (0190) (02o4)

534445332

528544739

1432 1424 (4700) (4673)

948953

5174650665 (11633)(11390)

6973461910 (15677)(13918)

53745852257 (120826)(11748)

212844207165 (21704)(21125)

88828820

228132226534 (2310) (23263)

3-60

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids Aluminum Oxidizer

88 15 AP-1O AN-59 HMX 0

Run No E-1453 E-1455

Expansion ratio 688 700

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test date

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

Wp loaded kg (ib)

Wp expended kg (ib)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

-E-1454 E-1456

9-18-75 9-26-75

SB-741 SB-742

3287 3119 (1294) (1228)

3307 3142 (1302) (1237)

2561 2561 (5647) (5646)2534 2528

(5586) (5574)

9891 9872

3835 38298 (1510) (15078)

3-61

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-IO AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s)

fP dt (ta) N-scm (lb-s)

Pc (f P dttb)

Ncm2 (psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

E-1454 E-1456

769 740

824 784

465 552 (675) (800)

541 620 (785) (899)

540 614 1 (783) (890)

40311 4482C (58467) (6500

41806 46000 (60634) (66718)

5242 6057 (7603) (8785)

0498 0518 (0196) (0204)

478 531

4726 523

13940 14319 (45736) (46977)

928 9527

3-62

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb)N (lb)

it (fF dt) (ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s-)

Isp efficiency

lsi vac ms N-skg(s22055

Expansion ratio

E-1454 E-1456

50189 50576 (11283) (11370)

6526 6835 (1467) (15365)

52044 52044 (11700) (11770)

20319 20447 (2072) (2085)

8598 865

22016

(2249) (2245)

696 694

3-63

8 ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (gt3 Wt HCl in Exhaust)

The propellant development work accomplished on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to this point indicated that the burn rate goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with the constraint of lt3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was probably not achievable Development work was continued on this propellant with the HC1 constraint removed but held to a minimum This section discusses that propellant development effort

a Burning Rate Studies Four small-scale batches (1500 g) were made varying the FEM AP (fluid energy mill-ground ammonium perchlorate) level from 10 to 30 wt The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground AD and 2 wt CU-0202 P was used End-of-mix viscosities pot life and cured strand burning rates were measured on each batch Objective of this work was to determine what FEM AP level was needed

to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) The formulations and test results are shown in Table 3-23and Fig 3-11 These results lead to the following conclusions

(1) The strand burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) is achievable using 18 wt FEM AP A motor burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) may require a slightly higher FEM AP level

(2) End-of-mix viscosities werein the range of 88 to152 kP at 520C (125 0 F) for FEM AP levels ranging from 10 to 20 wt Casting lives for these batches were 2_35 h at

520C (125 0F)

(3) Using FEM AP and increasing the AP level from 10wt to 18-wt increases HCI in the exhaust from 29 to =50

Thermoballistic calculations indicated that reducing the ballistic modifier level to 2 wt by elimination of the AD increased theoretical Isp by 196 N-skg (2 s) Elimination of the AD was desirable from other considerations Studies had shown that it crosslinks the R-45 prepolymer (probably through the double bond) and degrades propellant castability and physical properties Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made varying the FEM AP level over the range of 15 to 25 wt level Only 2 wt as received CU-0202 P was used as ballistic modifier End-of-mix viscosities and-cured strand burning rates were measured

Results of this study are shown in Table 3-24 and Fig 3-11 General conclusions from this work were

(1) Approximately 20 wt FEM AP is required to meet the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosities were in the range of 18 to 19 kP at 520C (1250F)

3-64

1 1 0902286

0802032 - 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 200

AD + 200 CU-0202 P

KZ 1778 690 Ncm2 (1000 psa) -070 E 200CU-0202 P

0 -060 O 1524

lt I- 345 Ncm

2 (500 psa) 200 AD 200CU-0202 P

0501270

z z

040 D2 1016 co

z z

0762- 030n

345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 200 CU-0202 P 0200508 -

I I 0100254 I I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FEM AP LEVEL wt

Fig 3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

3-65

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder 40 DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground (72 im)

Copper chromite as received (21 1im)

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto unground

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto fine grind

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy ground (63 tim)

SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

3050 3050 3050 -3050

2850 2350 1850 850

1000 1500 2000 3000

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier) (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

Formulation No AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

Brookfield Viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) kPh after CA

End-of-mix -152067 112062 88038 2806 LU

Pot life 18417 26418 22414 shy25627 3228 27224 3237 4038 40834

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0424 (0167) 0536 (0211) 0739 (0291) 1461 (0575) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0528 (0208) 0693 (0273) 1067 (0420) 2136 (0841)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 - 038 051 052

CA = curative addition

Table 3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (2 Wt Ballistip Modifier)

Batch No Formulation No

Ingredientswt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate

FEM ground 63 Pm

Brookfield End-of-Mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F)

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-135 AN-69

1200

1500

200

3050

2550

1500

10000

19

0437 (0172)

0660 (0260)

058

SB-136 SB-137 AN-70 AN-71

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

3050 3050

1550 2050

2500 2000

10000 10006

18

0884 (0348) 0615 (0242)

0242 (0489) 0930 (0366)

051 060

3-68

Based on these results formulation AN-71 with 2 wt as received CUshy0202 P and 20 wt FEM AP was selected for additional evaluation with

a scale-up batch and motor tests

b Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation Formulation AN-71 was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch [946 liter (25 gal) 113 kg (250 lb)] and motor tests It was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum 20 wt FEM AP and 2 wt ballistic modifier Details of the formulation are shownin Table 3-25 Formulation AN-71 was successfully mixed in the 946-liter (25-gal) mixer and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section III-H-8-c and d Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests

were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are also summarized in Table 3-25 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The propellant end-of-mix viscosity was 28 kP at 530C (127degF) which is high but acceptable Pot life was about 2 hours

(2) The strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was 0922 cms (0363 ins) which met the goal of 089 cms at

690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(3) Strand pressure exponent was 061 Motor pressure exponents are typically lower than strand pressure exponents The generally high pressure exponent is associated with the low ballistic modifier level (2 wt CU-0202 P) and the

fine (FEM) AP

(4) Card gap tests were negative at 0 cards Therefore they met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) The propellant density and JANNAF uniaxial properties obtained were typical of properties obtainedwith the ANAPAlHTPB propellant Measured density was 16497 gcm3 at 250C (00596 lbin3 at 770 F) Sm was 89 Ncm2 (129 psi) with an em of 37 The low strain values were adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

3-69

Table 3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation

ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Type Batch Number SB-140 Formulation No AN-71

113 kg (250 lb)Batch Size

Formulation wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized) 1192 004UOP-36 004DTBH

Copper Chromite as received 21 Am 200 Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 Ammonium nitrate

Monsanto unground 3050 Monsanto fine ground 2050

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 2000

Total 10000

Brookfield Apparent Viscosities kP at 0C (OF) Time after curative addition

09 h (end-of-mix) 28 at 53 (127) 19 h 52 at 52 (125) 29 h 73 at 52 (125)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins) At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) 0445 (0175) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0612 (0241) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) 0785 (0309) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0922 (0363)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 061 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests Negative at

0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) gcm3 (lbin 3) 16497 (00596)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties Sm Ncm2 (psi) 89 (129) em 37

89 (129)Sb Ncm2 (psi)eb 37

3-70

c Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAIHTPB (gt3 HCI in Exhaust)

As has been discussed the effects on this candidate propellant system

resulting from increasing the AP content were studied A formulation

with 20 AP and burning rate modifier reduced to 2 met the burning The burningrate and Isp goal This formulation is identified as AN-71

rates and measured Isp are shown in Fig 3-12 and Table 3-26 respectively

d Summary One ANAPAlHTPB propellant formulation was

developed that conformed to the program constraints for lt3 wt HCl

in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards

classification This formulation AN-25 had a motor burning rate

-of only 053 cms at 690 Ncm2 (021 ins at 1000 psia) and a

= 716 of only 2285 N-skg (233 s) A maximumdelivered vacuum Ip E

strand burning rate of only 064 cms at 690 Ncm2 (025 ins at

1000 psia) (unbiased by RAM-225 release agent) was achieved within

the program constraints with a small-scale batch using fluid energy

Since the development work indicated thatmillground (55 [m) AP

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1300 psia)

was probably not achievable with the constraint of _3 wt HI in the

propellant exhaust development work was continued with this constraint

removed but held to a minimum Formulation AN-71 was developed to

This formulation used only 200 meet the program goals on that basis

wt copper chromite as ballistic modifier and 2000 wt fluid energy

It had a motor burning rate of 097 cms atmill ground (63 gim) AP 1000 psia) and a delivered vacuum I E = 716690 Ncm2 (038 ins at

of 2403 N-skg (245 s) Table 3-27 summarizes and compares te properties

of these two formulations versus the program goals

The following summarizes the status of the ANAPAlHTPB propellant

development

(1) The basic ANAPA1HTPB propellat ip the second most

promising candidate of the three basic propellants

to good(2) Demonstrated that a few of AP is essential

aluminum combustion

of AP is required to meet(3) Demonstrated that more than 10

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins

at 1000 psia)

(4) Formulation AN-71 with 20 wt AP met the program goals for

burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [097 cms (038 ins)

achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] and delivered

= 716 [2403 N-skg (245 s) achieved versusvacuum Is at E

goal of 21403 N-skg (245 s)] but did not meet the goal

for pressure exponent (048 achieved versus goal of K042)

It conformed to the constraint for a Class 2 propellant

but did not conform to the constraint for lt_3 wt HUl in

the propellant exhaust

3-71

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellent

Solids 88 Alumindm 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX ---

Run No E-1484

Test Date 6-10-76

BatchChg No SB-1401

Nozzle Dt init cm (in) 48636 (19148)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 46380 (1826)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3025 (6670)

Wp expended kg(ib) 3025 (6668)

Wt expended 9997

Web thickness cm (in) 4648 (1830)

tb s 698

ta s 730

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 313 (454)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 380 (551)

Pc final Ncm 2 (psia) 317 (460)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24506 (355435)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24952 (3619)

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 351 (509) (psia)

r at cCms (ins) 0665 (0262)

KN initial 2103

KN average 21987

C ms (fts) 14604 (47914)

C efficiency 972

3-72

-E-1491

6-25-76

SB-1402

48636 (19148)

46355 (1825)

3016 (6650)

3003 (6621)

9956

4630 (1823)

654

705

317 (460)

421 (610)

238 (345)

24525 (355710)

24948 (36184)

3750 (5439)

0709 (0279)

2103

-21998

14638 (48026)

975

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX --shy

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 6248797 (14o4786) 6281131 (1412055)

F (fF dttb) N (lb) 895249 (20126) 960415 (21591)

it (fF dt for ta) 6356996 (142911) 6382382(1434817)

N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 210117 (21426) 215588 (21576)

Isp efficiency 9226 9256

Isp vac ms (corr) 240214 (24495) 241008 (24576)

Expansion ratio 716 726

(5) Formulation AN-25 with 10 wt AP met the program goal for presshysure exponent (028 achieved versus goal of lt042) but did not

meet the goals for burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [053 cms (021 ins) achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] dr for delivered vacuum I eE = 716 [2285 N-skg (233 s) achieved versus goal of gt2403 N-skg (245 s)] It conformed to the constraints for a Class 2 propellant and gt3 wt hCl in the propellant exhaust

(6) Demonstrated good castability and a pot life greater than

34 hours for formulation AN-25

(7) Demonstrated acceptable castability for formulation AN-71

(8) Successfully loaded and test fired 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with both formulations

(9) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

9 ANHMXAIHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished in the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined pershyformance goals within the constraints specified One of the advantages of this basic propellant is that it contains no AP and consequently generates no HCl in the exhaust However typical formulations using

3-73

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104

1524 I 1 1 6

1016 -A BATES MOTOR DATA 4

0 5x 10 MOTOR DATA 0508 - 2

E U

n =048 KN

0254 1-- 000 10 o 0203 800-6L 8

Z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0124 - 400 4 D

0051 200 2

I 10-20025 I1 I I

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm 2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140

3-74

Table 3-27 ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Achieved Properties vs Goals

Achieved Value

SB-140SB-73 AN-71AN-25-Alternate Propellant

Goal (10 wt- AP) (20 wt AP)Property

BATES motor Burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

089 (035) 053 (021) 097 (038)acms (ins)

BATES motor lt042 028pressure exponent

-Delivered vacuum sn

E 716 N-skg (s) 2403 (2245) 2285 (233) 2403 (245)

lt3 30 631C1 in exhaust

Meets card gap yes Required yesrequirement for Class 2 (negative (negative

at 0 cards)at 0 cards)

a45-kg (10-1b) motor test data

7) about to 20 wt HMX have theoretical Isp values

(vacuum and E 15 196 N-skg (2 s) less than comparable ANHNXAP(10)AlHTPB

formulations

Reduction in program funds and scope limited development effort on

this basic propellant to only four exploratory mixes

Two 10-g hand mixes one uncured and one a Safety Tests cured were made of formulations with 20 wt Class

A HMX to initially -Impact

check material compatibility and propellant safety properties

tests (DSC-differential scanning calorimeter) were made on both mixes

The formulations and results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-28

For comparison purposes these same safety tests were made on propellant

samples of the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-B-1123) Table 3-29

compares the safety properties of the candidate ANHMXAlHTPB formulation

AN-52 with the safety properties of PBAN baseline formulation TP-H-1123

These tests indicated

3-75

Table 3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No

Formulation No

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45 Alrosperse Premix DOA (4o)

Aluminum Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm Copper chromite as received Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 pm HMX Type II Class A

(DOA coated) Ammonium nitrate ground Ammonium nitrate unground

(+60 -32 mesh screened fraction) IPDI

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight 0 fire 50 fire

Electrostatic Sensitivity J

Thermal Stability (DSC - 10OCmin heating rate)

SB-59 SB-60

AN-51 (uncured) AN-52

1108 1108

1500 1500 200 200 200 200 7

2020 2020 3410 3410

1500 1500 none shy 062 9938 10000

4318 (17 )a 4572 (18) 4826 (19 )a 508 (20)

gt128 gt128

No exotherm No exotherm over tempera- over temperashyture range 21 ture range 21 to 1490c (70 to 1490c (70

to 3000 F) to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

3-76

Table 3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAiHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-52)

Formulation TP-H-1123 (PBAN Baseline)

Batch No SB-77

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400

HTPB binder

Aluminum 1600

Ballistic modifiers 040

Ammonium perchlorate 6960

Ammonium nitrate

HMX Type II Class A

Impact sensitivity cm (in) for 18 kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4318 (18) 50 fire 4953 (195)

Electrostatic sensitivity J gt128

Thermal stability (DSC - 100 Cmin heating rate) No exotherm

over temperature range 21 to -1490c (70tto 3000F)

DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

AN-52

SB-60

1190

1500

400

4910

2000

4572 (18) 508 (20)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000F)

3-77

(1) Formulation AN-52 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123)

(2) DSC data suggested that thermal stability of the 20 wt HMX propellant and gross material compatibility over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 300 0F) were adequate

(3) Formulations with up to 20 wt HMX could be safely processed inthe JPL ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

b Burning Rate Studies Two small-scale batches (1000 g) were made varying the level of Class A HMX from 1500 to 2000 wt Strand burn rate tests were made on cured propellant from both batches The formulations and results of strand burn rate tests are shown in Table 3-30 Strand burning rates increased from 0414 to 0450 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0163 to 0177 ins at 1000 psia) with the 1500 to 2000 wt increase in Class A HMX while the strand pressure exponent remained constant at 042 Although the strand pressure exponent met the performance goal of lt042 the burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)were well below the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) These very slow burn rates suggest that the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant may not be a viable candidate for achieving program goals

c Hazard Classification Card gap samples were cast cured and tested from the two batches shownin Table 3-30 Results of the card gap tests indicated positive tests at 35 and 70 cards on both batches Therefore these formulations with 15 and 20 wt Class A HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant hazard classification one of the major constraints Propellant development work on the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant was terminated at this point

d Summary The following summarizes the status of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant development

(1) Demonstrated that 1500 and 2000 wt_ Class A HMX resulted in Class 7 propellants

(2) Achieved a strand burning rate of 0450 cms (0177 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and a strand pressure exponent of 042 with a formulation containing 2000 wt Class A HMX

(3) Demonstrated good castability of the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant

(4) Discontinued development of this basic propellant as a result of reduction in funds

3-78

Table 3-30 ANHM4XHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-82A (HMX)

ANH-1

SB-81

ANH-1

(HMX)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class A 1500 2000

Ammonium nitrate 5400 4900

Card gap tests

0 cards 35 cards 70 cards

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

1 positive 2 positive

0-310 (0122) 0414 (0163)

042

1 positive 2 positive

0340 (0134) 0450 (0177)

042

3-79

10 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work-accompshylished on the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraints specified The constraint of lt_3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was accomplished by limiting the AP level in the formulation to10 wt The constraint of a Class 2 propellant hazard classification was primarily accomplished by limiting the HMX Class (particle size) and level to meet the card gap requireshyments for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards)

a Safety Tests Safety tests were performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes containing 20 wt Class A HMX to check material compatishybility and safety properties The formulations and the test results are shown in Table 3-31 As in the case of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant these safety tests results were compared to similar safety test results on the PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123) Table 3-32 shows this comparison General conclusions were

(1) Formulation AN-50 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as TP-H-1123

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F) as determined by the DSC

(3) Formulations with-up to 20 wt HMX could besafely proshycessed in the JPL-ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

Safety tests were also performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes to check material capability and propellant safety properties when the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were incorporated into ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellants Selected level for both UOP-36 and DTBH was 004 wt Impact sensitivity electrostatic sensitivity and thermal stability (DSC) tests were made on samples from the mix with the pot-life extendshyers SB-127 and on samples from a control mix without the pot-life extenders SB-126 The formulations and test results were shown in Table 3-33 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The mix with the pot-life extenders had essentially the same impact sensitivity and electrostatic sensitivity as the control mix

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000 F) (DSC)

b Burning Rate Studies Six small-scale batches were made varying HMX particle size at two sizes Class A ( 149 lm) and Class E (15 to 20 gim) and HMX level at three levels 10 15 and 20 wt Objective of this study was to determine the effects of HMX particle

3-80

Table 3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No SB-57 (uncured)

Formulation No AN-49

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45

Alrosperse Premix 1108

DOA (40)

Aluminum 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm 200

Copper chromite as received 200

Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 Jm 1000

HMX Type II Class A (1 DOA coated) 2020

Ammonium nitrate ground 3910

IPDI none

9938

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for

18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 Fire 381 (15)a

50 Fire 43-18 (17 )a

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over (DSC at 10degCmin heating temperature range rate) 21 to 1490C

(70 to 3000 F)

SB-58

AN-50

1108

1500

200

200

1000

2020

3910

062

10000

5334 (21)

5715 (225)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples

3-81

Table 3-32 -Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate--ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-50)

Formulation TP-H-1123 AN-50

(PANbaseline)

Batch Number SB-77 SB-58

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400 ---

HTPB binder --- 1190

Aluminum 1600 1500

Ballistic modifiers 040 400

Ammonium perchlorate 6960 1000

Ammonium nitrate --- 3910

HMX Type II Class A --- 2000

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4572 (18) 5334 (21)

50 fire 4953 (195) 5715 (225)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability (DSC at 100Cmin heating No exotherm over No exotherm-over rate) temperature rangeru temperature range

21 to 1490C 21 to 149 0 Cshy(70 to 3000 F) (70 to 3000 F)

size and level on propellant hazard classification (card gap tests) strand burningrates and relative castability Tests were performed on- samples from each of these batches and the results are summarized in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 alongwith-the formulations Results of the card gap tests and relative castability are discussed in the hazards classification and processing sections respectively The strand burn- ing rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) were plotted versus HMX level in Fig 3-13 forthe two different HMXparticle sizes Class A and Class E Although the strand burning rates are biased to faster values by the

3-82

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests

Formulations for 10-g Hand Mixes

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate attritor ground (44 pm)

Copper chromite attritor

ground (17 Pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (63 gm)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-Nshycyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine)

DTBH (ditertiary butyl hydroquinone)

Safety Tests (Cured Propellant)

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight)

0 Fire

50 Fire

SB-126 SB-127

ANH-16A (Control) ANH-30

1200 1192

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1300 1300

100 1000

004

0-04

10000 10000

43 (17) 57 (19)

52 (205) 51 (20)

3-83

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests (Continuation 1)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over No exotherm over

(DSC at 10degCmin heating rate)

temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000F)

temperature range 21 to 149 0C (70 to 3000F)

RAM-225 release agent the relative ranking and trends are believed to be valid General conclusions from these rankings and trends are as follows

(1) The fine particle size HMX Class E (15-20 pm) gave signifishycantly faster burning rates than the coarse Class A (=149 pm) HMX

(2) The fine particle size HMX Class E gave lower pressure exponent than the coarse Class E HMX

(3) Strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) increased significantly with HMX level to about 15 wt and tended to level in the 15 to 20 wt range

From burning rate considerations the fine size Class E HMX was preferred because it gave faster burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponents Formulation ANH-5A [Batch SB-85A(HMX)] was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed in Sections III-H-10-f and III-H-10-g on Scale-up and Ballistic Evaluation

Cured propellant strands to this point in the program had been prepared by casting the uncured propellant into molds which formed individual strands and which had been coated with RAM-225 release agent Test data from the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings(from Batch SB-89 (first scale-up batch) revealed a large discrepancy between strand burn rates and the 45-kg (10-1b) motor burn rates An investigation of this discrepshyancy revealed that the RAM-225 was the cause Strands were prepared in5 the following three ways and tested for comparison

(1) Strands cured in the RAM-225 release molds and restricted

(2) Strands cut from a solid block of cured propellant and restricted

(3) Strands cut from a block of cured propellant then given light spray coat of RAM-225 dried in 710 C (1600F) oven then restricted

3-84

Table 3-34 ANH-MXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class A

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchlorate

ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates2

at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500to 1000 psia)

SB-88

ANH-8

1200

1500

200

200

1000

4900

1000

2 negative

1 negative

0480(0189)a

6 65 (0 2 62 )a0

048

SB-83 SB-84

ANH-3 NH-4

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1500 2000

4400 3900

1000 1000

-

1 positive 1 positive

2 positive 2 positive

0 622 (0 245 )a 05 41(02 13 )a

0826 (0 32 5)a 0 7 47 (02 94 )a

041 047

3-85

Table 3-34 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) (Continuation 1)

Shore A Hardness (3 s) 81 80 82

Relative Castability Good Good Good

aStrands were cast into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

Results of the tests are summarized in Table 3-36 and Fig 3-14 Very good agreement was obtained between the burn rate of strands cured in the RAM-225 release mold and strands cut from a cured block of propelshy

lant and then sprayed with RAM-225 However both these sets of burn

rates were erroneously fast compared to the 5 x 10 motor burn rates In contrast the strand burn rates obtained from cut strands which were

not treated with RAM-225 were much slower and agreed fairly well with motor data

A brief investigation was made to determine the composition of RAM-225 and whether it could be used as an improved ballistic modifier in the propellant formulation Chemical analysis of RAM-225 indicated

that it is a high molecular weight silicone oil in the solvents isopropashynol and heptane Two 38-liter (1-gal) batches of propellant were made with 015 wt dimethyl silicone (1000 cS) One batch had 400 wt mixed ballistic modifiers (ammonium dichromate and copper chromite) and

the other batch had 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier Both batches made with the 015 wt dimethyl silicone showed signs of viscosity buildup even before curative addition The batch with the 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier became too viscous to process to completion Tests results on the successfully completed batch with 015 wt dimethshyyl silicon [Batch SB-107 (HMX)] are shown in Table 3-37 Test results from Batch SB-108 (HMX) are also included in this table for comparative purposes General conclusions from these tests are as follows

(1) No significant changes in strand burning rates were observed due to addition of 015 wt dimethyl silicone

(2) The dimethyl silicone caused rapid propellant viscosity buildup even before curative addition and therefore the material appears impractical from propellant processing considerations

A series of six small-scale (1000 g) batches was made with the specific objectives of increasing propellant burn rate improving castashybility and improving burn rate reproducibility US Agri-Chemicals (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent was used for all six batches The following variables were evaluated

3-86

0

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations --HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchloshyrate ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

32 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770 F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-87 SB-85A SB-86

ANH-7 ANH-5A ANH-6

1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500

200 200 200

200 200 200

1000 1500 2000

4900 4400 3900

1000 1000 1000

2 neg -

1 neg

I neg 2 neg 1 pos

1 pos

(500 psia) 0 767 (0 302 )a 0 930 (0 366 )a 0912(0359)a

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0970(0382)a 1105 (0 43 5 )a 1 128 (0444 )a

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2

(500to 1000 psia) 033 024 031

3-87

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation

(Class E HMX) (Continuation 1)

89 88Shore A Hardness (3 s) 90

Relative Castability Fair Fair Marginal

aStrands were east into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

(1) Ammonium nitrate particle size Replacement of part or all of the large unground prills by a coarse-ground ammor nitrate

(2) Plasticizer type Replacement of DOA (dioctyl adipate) by IDP (isodecyl pelargonate)

Relative castability and strand burn rates were measured on each batch Results of this study are summarized in Tables 3-38 and 3-39 and Fig 3-15 General conclusions regarding propellant burn rates from the study were as follows

(1) Replacement of the very large unground ammonium nitrate prills by coarsely ground ammonium nitrate reduced propelshy

lant burning rate

(2) Replacement of DOA by IDP slightly reduced propellant burnshying rate (Q2)

(3) Strand pressure exponents were typically 036 or less well within the goal of lt042

(4) The US Agri-Chemical (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent handled without caking and had less tendshyency to size reduce during handling tand mixing These

factors should improve propellant burn rate reproducibility

The reduction in burn rate by replacement of unground prills with coarseshyly ground AN was unexpected and inconsistent with usual solid propellant experience Usually propellant burn rate increases with increasing fractions of ground oxidizer The mechanism for this unusual response has not been identified to date Formulation ANH-12 Batch SB-94 (HMX)

had the fastest burn rate 0836 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0329 ins at 1000 psia) consistent with acceptable castability Therefore it was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of replacing bamer mill ground AP with the finer fluid energy mill (FEM) ground AP on propellant properties Micromerograph analysis

3-88

270I 050-K STRAND BURN RATES BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

CLASSE HMXZ 1016 040 0 0ashy10

7CLASS AHMX 0762 - 030 Z

z nD 2

z - -

Ce 0508 -020 1 F-I) 0 5 10 15 20

HMX wt

Fig 3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-89

Table 3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)

Strand Burning Rate cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

Strands cured Strands cut 5 x 10 motor Strands cut in RAM-225 from cured firings from cured

Pressure released mold block of block of Ncm 2 (psia) propellant propellant

sprayed with RAMshy225 dried and tested

690 (1000) 0991 (0390) 0721 (0284) 0660 (0260) 0983 (0387)

517 (750) 0876 (0345) - 0662 (0245)

345 (500) 0765 (0301) 0599 (0236) 0549 (0216) 0785 (0309)

172 (250) 0572 (0225) - 0457 (0180)

Pressure 042 027 028 033 exponent

indicated that the fluid energy mill AP had a mass median diameter of 63 Am compared to 90 pm for typical hammer mill ground AP Batch SB-110 (HMX) was made using 1700 wt Class E HMX and 1000 wt of the FEM AP A reference batch SB-98 (HMX) was made using the hammer mill ground AP Strand burn rates and relative castability were detershy

mined on both of the batches Results are shown in Table 3-40 and Fig 3-16

(1) Replacement of the hammer mill ground (9 pm) AP by the FEM ground (63 pm) AP increased strandburn rate to 0950 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0374 ins at 1000 psia) This exceeds the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) Strand pressure exponent appeared to be reduced with use of the FEM ground AP

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of finer ballistic modifier particle size on propellant properties As discussed in the ANAPHTPB propellant development section an attritor mill was used to size reduce the ballistic modifiers ammonium dichroshymate and copper chromite Batch SB-117 (HMX) was made using 200 wt

3-90

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPBbinder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper Chromite

Dimethyl silicone

(1000 cS)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground US Steel with anti-caking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground US Steel with antishycaking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium perchlorate ground

SB-l08 (Reference)

AN-20

1200

1500

200

200

-

2000

-

2900

-

1000

1000

SB-107 SB-109

ANH-19 ANH-21

1185 1185

1500 1500

200 100

200 100

015 015

2000 2000

2900 3100

-

1000 1000

- -

1000 1000

3-91

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations -Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation (Continuation 1)

Relative Castability Excellent Uncastable Mix could not castability be completed

cured up in mix bowl

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0665 (0262) 0673 (0265) -

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0818 (0322) 0808 (0318) -

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 026

Card gap tests

35 cards

55 cards

69 cards 3 positive 3 positive

attritor ground (17 pm) copper chromite 1700 wt Class E HMX and FEM ground (63 pm) AP No ammonium dichromate was used in this batch as a part of the overall effort to achieve the burning rate goal 089

cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with improved performance (Isc)castability and physical properties Reference Batch SB-116 (AN ) was made using as received (21 pm) copper chromite Table 3-41 summarizes results of Brookfield end-of-mix visosity and strand burn rate tests on these two batches These results led to the following conclusions

(1) In an IDP plasticized formulation using only 200 wt CU-0202 P as ballistic modifier coarse ground AN and 63 Im FEM ground AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 m increased the strand burn rate at 690

Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0724 to 0737 cms (0285 to 0290 ins) t_2

(2) No significant change in strand pressure exponent was observed

(3) Castability was good for both batches

3-92

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103

25401 0 1 100

2032 - A CURED IN RAM-225 RELEASED STRAND MOLD - 8

B STRAND CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK

1524- BURNED WITHOUT TREATMENT 6

EU C STRANDS CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK SPRAYED WITH RAM-225 DRIED THEN BURNED ui

1016- 4 0C oD

z 7I- 0 z z z

CA _B

o 0o

z z0508 2

V)

BATCH No SB-89 (HMX)

FOMULATION ANH-9

0254 I I i I 10-1 69 103 138- 207 345 690

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (IIX) Formulation ANH-9

3-93

Table 3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size

Variation (Class E HMX - DOA Plasticizer)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with antishycaking coating)

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with

anticaking coating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative castability

Strand burning rates

at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(at 1000 psia)

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-90 SB-91 SB-93 SB-95

ANH-9 ANH-10 ANH-11 ANH-13

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

1500 1500 1500 1500

4400 2900 1760

- 1500 2640 4400

_

1000 1000 1000 1000

Uncastable Uncastable Marginally Castable castable

- 0678 0678 0516 (0 267 )a (0234)a (0 2 0 3 )a

0953 0859 0859 0665 -(0 3 7 5 )a (0 3 3 8 )a (0 299)a (0 2 6 2 )a

034 035 036

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were cut

from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased

by RAM-225 release agent

3-94

Table 3-39 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX - IDP Plasticizer)

Batch No SB-94 SB-96

Formulation No ANH-12 ANH-14

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticizer) 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium diohromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class E 1500 1500

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 2900

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 1500 4400

Ammonium perchlorate ground 1000 1000

Relative Castability Good castability

Excellent castability

Strand burning rates at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

-

0836 (0 329 )a

0518 (0 204 )a

0655 (0258) a

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were

cut from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased by RAM-225 release agent

3-95

1016 1 040

eE aQCNO

DOA PLASTICIZER

z CI-o 100

lt 0762 030 - I--

IDP PLASTICIZER

z Z

a a z z

--- 1-shy

0508 I-I I I20

cn

0 20 40 60 80 100 FRACTION OF COARSE GROUND AN wt

Fig 3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN

3-96

C

Table 3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations -AP Particle Size Variation (HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

Ammonium perchloriate hammer mill ground (Micromerograph 50 wt point 9 gim)

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (Mieromerograph 50 wt point 63 pm)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 45 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Relative Castability

3-97

SB-98 ANH-16 Reference

1200

1500

200

200 shy

1700

2700

1500

1000

0653 (0257)

0810 (0319)

030

Good

castability

SB-110 ANH-16

1200

1500

200

200

1700

2700

1500

-

1000

0843 (0332)

0950 (0374)

017

Good castability

slightly more viscous than SB-98 (HMX)

1270 1 050

K K

CN4 E 0

1016 040 0

o 0

100

BURN RATE GOAL

z z

= 0762 - 030 D

z z

05081 I I I I 020 40 50 60 70- 80 90 100t

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) gm

Fig 3-16i Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-98

Table 3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Particle Size Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Copper chromite

As received (21 pm)

Attritor ground (17 pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground

Total

Relative castability

Brookfield end-of-mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F) Strand burning rates at 250C

(770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

3-99

SB-116 (Reference) SB-117

ANH-24A ANH-24B

1200 1200

1500 1500

200

- 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1500 1500

1000 1000

10000 10000

Good Good

168 136

0610 (0240) 0627 (0247)

0724 (0285) 0737 (0290)

028 024

As was observed with the ANAPAIHTPB propellant reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burn rates

Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better optimize the ballistic modifier system for the basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB propelshylant Previous to this point in the program the mixed ballisticmodifishyer system of 200 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) with 200 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was used It was desirable to reduce the total ballistic modifier level to less than 400 wt and recover some shy

performance (II delivered) Elimination of AD was also desirable because of its tendency to crosslink the R-45 prepolymer with subsequent degradation of propellant castability and physical properties Batches SB-132 (HMX) and SB-138 (HMX) were made using only as-receivedCU-0202 P as the ballistic modifier at the 200 wt and 300 wt levels respecshytively The objective of testing these two batches was to determine whether the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm

2

(1000 psia) could be achieved by using only CU-0202 P at levels less than 400 wt Brookfield end-of-mix and strandburning rates were measured on both batches Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-42 and they indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate achieved with 300 wt as-received CU-0202 P was 6nly 0810 cms (0319 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(2) Based on extrapolation the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) does not appear achievshyable even at 400 wt as-received CU-0202 P

(3) A mixed ballistic modifier system of AD and CU-0202 P appears necessary to meet the burning rate goal

The third batch SB-134 (HMX) was made using the mixed ballistic modifier system of 100 wt hammer mill ground (72 m) AD and 200 wt as-received CU-0202 P Brookfield viscosity and strand burning rates were also measured on this batch and results are also shown in Table 3-42 They indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate of 0879 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0346 ins at 1000 psia) was achieved with Batch SB-134 (HMX) This almost meets the goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosity of 21 kP at 520C (125 0 F) indicated the propellant had acceptable castability

Limited time and budget did not allow for any additional optimization of the ballistic modifier system Therefore Formulation ANH-33 [Batch SB-134 (HMX)] was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed inthe sections on Scale-Up and Ballistic Evaluation

3-100

---

Table 3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 [m

Ammonium dichromate Hamshymer mill ground 72 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

HMX Class E

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground 63 pm

Brookfield End-of-mix Viscosity kP at 520C (1250F)

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-132

ANH-34

1200

1500

200

2900

1500

1700

1000

10000

33

(500 psia) 0594 (0234)

At 690 Ncm2 0757 (0298) (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

3-101

SB-138 SB-134

ANH-32 ANH-33

1200 1200

1500 1500

300 200

--- 100

2800 2800

1500 1500

1700 1700

1000 1000

10000 10000

Could not 21 measure

0630 (0248) 0615 (0242)

0810 (0319) 0879 (0346)

036 051

In summary the following approaches were investigated as methods

of achievins faster propellant burning rates and the goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncmd (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(1) HMX class (particle size)

(2) HMX level

(3) Dimethyl silicone as ballistic modifier

(4) Finer AN particle size

(5) Finer AP particle size

(6) Finer CU-0202 P particle size

(7) Ballistic modifier type and level

Of these only (1) (2) (5) and (7) proved to be effective approaches

to faster burning rates

c Hazards Classification The Naval Ordnance Station (NOS) did some of the initial propellant hazard classification testing to define the maximum level of HMX which could be used and remain a Class 2 propellant The basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB formulation selected for testing was an 88 wt total solids HTPB (R-45) formulation with 150

wt aluminum and 10 wt ammonium perchlorate Tests were planned on formulations with and without the ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P Table 3-43 summarizes results of these hazard tests These results indicated that 20 wt Class E HMX (15 Mm)in non-ballistic modified formulations gave propellants which marginally met card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards) AP particle size appeared to affect card gap test results No firm conclusions could be made regarding the ballistic modified formulations

This effort to define the maximum HMX level for a Class 2 ballisshytic modified propellant was continued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with AFRPL support Card gap tests made on the ballistic modified formulations reported in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 are summarized in Table 3-44 for convenience

General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Maximum level of Class A HMX is greater than 1000 wt and less than 1500 wt for a ballistic modified formulation

to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

(2) Maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1500 wt and less than 2000 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

3-102

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Ingredients wt

AN (unground) 430 430 4776 4279 390 3862

AP 45p m 100 - - -

AP 6 [m - - 995 995 - -

AP 4 [m - 100- - - - -

AP 2 4m - - - - 100 99

HMX 15 pm 200 200 1493 1990 200 198

Al H-12 150 150 1493 1493 150 1485

HTPB Binder 120 120 1243 1243 120 1287

AD - - - - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

CU-0202 P - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

Lab Safety Tests

Impact sensitivity mm 375 375 350 275 -

Friction kg (lb) gt444 gt444 gt444 gt444 -

(980) (980) (980) (980)

ESD J gt125 L125 125 gt125

Field Safety Tests

Card gap cards 55 to 65 to 0 60 to 35 to 55 to 60 70 - 65 50 60

Cap neg neg neg neg neg neg

3-103

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data (Continuation 1)

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Unconfirmed burning neg neg neg neg neg neg

Critical dia cm (in) gt64 gt64 gt64 gt64 lt89 lt89 (25) (25) (25) (25) (35) (35)

aX-ray of samples showed evidence of voids

Table 3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A with Class E)

Batch No HMX Card Gap

Wt Class Positive Negative Cards

SB-88 10 A - 2 0 - 1 -35

SB-83 15 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-84 20 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-87 10 E - 2 0 - 1 35

SB-85A 15 E - 32 - 2 35

SB-86 20 E 1 - 35 1 70

Class E HMX was selected because higher levels could be incorporated and remain a Class 2 propellant and because it gave the best ballistic properties

3-104

Two additional small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better define the maximum level of Class E HMX The Class E HMX was varied to the 1900 wt and 1700 wt levels for Batches SB-97 (HMX) and SB-98 (HMX) respectively Card gap sensitivity strand burning rates and relative castability were measured in both batches Table 3-45 shows the test results These tests indicated the maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1900 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

The 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches were made varying Class E HIX level to 1500 1700 and 1750 wt Card gap verification tests were made on these batches as shown later in Table 3-49 and test results are summarized in Table 3-46

Results of all the tests indicated the maximum level of Class E IHMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt for a ballistic

) modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

d Processing Studies The relative castability of propellant was observed on the small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) development batches and used in the selection of formulations for evaluation in the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches Brookfield end-of-mix and pot life tests were measured on all of the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches

The coarse Class A HMX (W149 gim) has a better particle size than the fine Class E HMX (15 - 20 pm) for solids packing Consequently the Class A HMX yielded propellants with better castability than the Class E HMX (Table 3-35) However Class E HMX was selected for all the scale-up batches because higher HMX levels could be used and ballistic properties were better (faster burn rates and lower pressure exponents) The level of MX was generally limited by Class 2 card gap constraints before castability became unacceptable

The lower viscosity plasticizer IDP yielded propellants with significantly better castability than the plasticizer DOA with only a slight loss in propellant burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) (Tables 3-38 and 3-39) Therefore IDP was the selected plasticizer

Replacement of the very coarse unground AN prills by coarselyground AN improved castability but reduced propellant burning rate Consequently the fraction of AN coarse ground was limited to 34 to maximize burn rate consistent with good castability (Tables 3-38 and 3-39

Replacement of the hammer mill ground (90 14m) AP by the fluid energy mill ground (63 jim) AP made the propellant more viscous but castability remained good (Table 3-40) This change significantly increased propellant burning rate and made the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) achievable (Fig 3-16) Therefore the fluid energy mill ground AP (63 pm) was selected for use when it became available

3-105

Table 3-45 ANHMXAPAHTPB-Formulation-z HMX Level (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating)

Ammonium nitratecoatse -ground (US Steel with anticaking c6ating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative Castability shy

-

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards

55 Cards

69 Cards

3-166

SB-97 SB98 ANH-15 ANH-16

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1900 1700

-2500 2700

1500 1500

1000 1000

Good Good

castability castability

0678 (0267) 0653 (0257)

0826 (0325) 0810 (0319)

028 030

1---positive

--- 1 positive

4 positive 2 negative

---

---

---

---

---

Table 3-46 JPL Hazard Test Data (Class E)

HMX Batch No

Wt Class

SB-89 (HMX) 15 E

SB-92 (HMX) 15 E

SB-106 (HMX) 175 E

SB-141 (H4X) 17 E

Positive

4

3

I

I

I

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

2

1

Card Gap

Negative Cards

6 0

10 35

2 0

5

--- 10

--- 15

--- 20

--- 27

3 30

5 35

--- 69

2 70

--- 35

--- 60

--- 61

--- 62

3 63

1 65

10 69

3-107

Replacement of the as-received CU-0202 P (21 pm) by attritor ground CU-0202 P (17 pm) did not significantly affect propellant castashybility Since this change increased burning rate by only 2 the asshyreceived (21 pm) CU-0202 P was selected Increasing the Cu-0202 P level from 200 to 300 wt significantly increased propellant viscosity making it less castable (Table 3-42)

Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were shown to signifishycantly improve castability and pot life with the ANAPAlHTPB propellant After checking to determine these materials were compatible and safety properties were adequate these pot-life extenders were incorporated into the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant

e Combustion Problems The problem of incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered speciflc impulse was addressed for the basic ANHMXAPAlHTBP propellant early in the program Two approaches evaluated to improve metal combustion I Land delivered specific impulse were

(1) Use of aluminummagnesium (AlMg) alloys

(2) Replacement of aluminum by magnesium

This work (by NOS) was done concurrently Mith the development -CV of the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant using conventional aluminum For convenience and clarity all of the NOS propellant development work done with the R-45 HTPB binder is reported and discussed in this section

Table 4-47 summarizes results of motor tests on ANHMXAPA1HTPB propellants with no ballistic modifiers Propellant formulation variations made were

(1) Total solids loading (87 to 88 wt )

(2) AP particle size (20 and 200 [m)

(3) HMX (Class E) level (20 and 30 wt )

(4) Metal level (15 to 20 wt ) shy

(5) Metal type (Al -and AlMg alloy)

The motors tested were either 4536-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors or 1814-kg (40-1b) charge (FPC) motors at sea level conditions Corrections to vacuum conditions with E = 685 were made as shown in Table 4-47 General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Motor burning rates at 483 Ncm2 (700 psia) were all in the range of 0356 to 0457 cms (014 to 018 ins) Ballistic modifiers are required to meet burning rate goal of 089 Ncm2 (035 ins) with a pressure exponent of

042

3-108

Table 3-47 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation

Specific Impulse

Propellant Data N-skg (s)

Burning rate at 483 Ncm

2

AP Vacuumd (700 psi)Motor Percent Particle Percent Percent

Typeb of AP Size m of HMX of Metal Type of Metal Delivered c = 685 cms (ins)

TPC 10 200 20 20 Aluminum 19476 (1986) 0356 (014)

20 19 AlMg (9010) 19760 (2015) 21633 (2206) 0381 (015)TPCa 200

TPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 21114 (2153) 22271 (2271) 0381 (015)

TPC 200 20 15 AlMg (9010) 20359 (2076) 20908 (2312) 0356 (014)

0 TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20398 (2080) 22467 (2291) 0356 (014)

TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23134 (2358) 0356 (014)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 21045 (2146) 23222 (2368) 0457 (018)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23242 (2370) 0457 (018)

FPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 19192 (1957) 21898 (2233) 0445 (0175)

00 wt total solids loaded propellant the remainder are 88 wt a87 bTPC are 4536-kg (10-1b) charge motor grains

CFPC are 1814-kg (40-1b) charge motor grains dAll motor tests were made at sea level Correction to vacuum conditi6ns was made as follows

fFdt me + Pa Aeta Vac Isp ms =

CF Creq

Correction to desired expansion ratio (c req) was done by multiplying vac Isp ms by C

CF C act

(2) The maximum vac Isp ms e = 685 obtained for this series of tests were 23242 N-skg (2370 s) This was obtained using 15 wt conventional Al 20 wt Class E HMX and 10 wt 20 jim AP The performance goal was vac Isp ms

E = 71 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(3) Reducing the AP particle size from 200 to 20 gm significantly improved vac Isp ms pound1177 N-skg (C12s)] and increased

burning rate

(4) Increasing the Class E HMX level from 20 to 30 wt signishyficantly increased vac Is ms 686 N-skg (-7 s) However propellant with 30 wt C ass E HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Increasing the metal level from 15 wt to 19 or 20 wt significantly reduced vac inpMs

(6) Replacement of the conventional aluminum by the AlMg alloy

(9010) appeared to give a small performance gain 392 N-skg (14 s) However the data was too limited to draw

firm conclusions

Propellant development effort was continued in an effort to achieve the performance goals The ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P were selected based on work done by JPL In addition finer AP particle sizes were selected based on the ability of this approach to achieve both improved performance and faster burning rates A Class E HMX level of 20 wt O was selected as the maximum to meet card gap requirements for Class 2 propellants based on card gap tests available at that time Table 3-48 summarizes motor test and theoretical performance results on the three ballisttc modified propellant formulations evaluated Formushylation 2A used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system 10 wt 55 Jim AP and 15 wt conventional aluminum Formulation 2Bused 1 wt AD as ballistic modifier 10 wt 10 gm AP and 15 wt AlMg alloy (9010) Formulation 2C used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system no AP and 15 wt magnesium The motor test results shown are all from 45-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors Since several formulation variables were varied between the three formulations it is not possible to isolate just the effect of metal type on propellant performance However the following general conclusions can be made from this work

(1) Formulation 2A which used conventional aluminum was the most promising candidate The vac Isp ms E = 684of 24144 N-skg (2462 s) met the goal of vac Isp Ms E = 71 -2403 N-sks (245 s) Burning rate achieved was 076 cms at 483 Ncm (030 ins at 700 psia) compared to the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with a pressure exponent _04

(2) Formulation 2B which used the AlMg alloy (9010) had a theiretical Isp (1000147) nearly the same as formulashy

tion 2A but Vac Isp msC = 684 was only 23252 N-skg(2371 s) In addition the burning rate was only 053

3-10

---

---

Table 3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured

Propellant No

Ingredients wt

AN

AP

HMX (15 pm)

Al

AlMg alloy (9010)

Mg

AD

CU-0202 P

R-45M

DOA

Theoretical Density gcm 3

(lbin3 )

Theoretical I

(Iooo147 )a Lcm 2 (s)

Measured Isp N-skg (s) at e = 55

2A

410

100 (55 fim)

200

150

10

10

80

40

17051

(00616)

24978

(2547)

22810 (2326)

Measured Vac Is N-skg (s) 24144 corr to E = 68 (2462)

Burn rate at 483 Ncm3

(700 psia) cms 076 (ins) (030)

2B 2C

420 510

100 (10 pm) --shy

200 200

150 --shy

--- 150

10 10

--- 10

100 80

20 40

16829 16027

(00608) (00579)

24958 23997 (2545) (2447)

21310 20113 (2173) (2051)

23252 22673 (2371) (2312)

053 041 (021) (016)

aStandard Conditions Chamber pressure of 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and expanded to 1 atm (147 psia)

3-111

cms at 483 Ncm2 (021 ins at 700 psia) for this formulation This data suggests that there was no performance advantage in using the AlMg alloy compared to conventional aluminum

(3) Formulation 2C which used magnesium as the metal had theoshyretical density and theoretical Isp (1000147) values significantly lower than formulation 2A The measured Isp and burning rates confirmed that this was-the least attractive of the three formulations

This work was ended at this stage of the program Good Isp efficiencies were being achieved with conventional aluminum using 10 wt fine particlesize AP and the selected ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P

f Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Four formulashytions were selected for scale-up evaluation and motor tests throughout the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant development effort Table 3-49 shows these four formulations Major changes in the formulations which were made as a result of the development effort on the small scale were

(1) dhange from DOAt lower viscbsity lasti6izdr IDP to improveshycastability

(2) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH to improve castability and pot life

(3) Reductions of the total ballistic modifier level from 400 wt to 300 wt to improve performance

(4) Selection of 17 wt ClassE HMX to achieve maximum performance and burning rate within the constraint of a Class 2 propellant

(5) Changes in the AN type to the higher density harder prill Monsanto AN to improve castability and burn rate control

(6) Change from hammer mill ground 8-9 gm AP to the finer fluid energy mill ground 63 Itm AP to achieve faster burning rates

All four formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into 5 x 10 motors BATES motors and small-scale samples The motors were successfully tested and results are summarized and discussed in Subsection g Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

3-112

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No SB-89 SB-92 SB-106 SB-141

Formulation No ANH-9 ANH-12 ANH-18 ANH-33

Batch size kg (ib) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Ingredients wt

R-45 polymer 6470 6582 6528 6397

DOA plasticizer 4613

IDP plasticizer --- 4647 4609 4615

)OA plasticizer (HMX coating) 0187 0153 0191 0185

Lirosperse 11 P 0113 0113 0113 0113

UOP-36 0040

DTBH --- --- --- 0040

IPDI 0617 0559 0559 0610

Ammonium dichromate (ground 7 Mm) 200 200 200 100

Copper chromite (as received 21 pm) 200 200 200 200

Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500

--- --- ---

---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil U S Steel Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

U S Steel Monsanto ---

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8-9 Am fluid energy mill ground 63 Am

Totals

Brookfield apparent viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) (Viscosity kPtime after curative addition)

End-of-mix

(Continuation 1)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

1500

4400

1000

10000

2208 2018 2128

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

1500

2900

1500

1000

10000

1609 2819 2929 4139 4149

SB-106 SB-141

ANH-18 ANH-33

104 (230) 113 (250)

1750 1700

2900 2800

1250 1500

1000 --shy1000

10000 10000

1008 708 1418 1318 2228 1527 2438 2137

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Nam 2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm (750 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

20 cards 27 cards 30 cards 35 cards 60 cards 61 cards 62 cards 63 cards

65 cards

(Continuation 2)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

0599 (0236)

0721 (0284)

027

6 negative 4 positive

10 negative

---

---

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

0503 (0198) 0617 (0243) 0691 (0272) 0775 (0305)

031

2 negative 3 positive 1 positive 1 positive 3 negative 5 negative

SB-106

ANH-18

104 (230)

0566 (0223) 0683 (0269) 0767 Co302) 0818 (0322)

027

SB-141

AHN-33

113 (250)

0544 (0214) 0622 (0245) 0719 (0283) 0805 (0317)

037

1 positive 1 positive 2 positive 3 negative

1 positive 1 negative

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type (Continuation 3)

SB-89 SB-92 SB-I06 SB-141Batch No

Formulation No ANH9 ANH-12 ANH-18 AHN-33

Batch size kg (lb) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Card Gap Tests (Contd)

69 cards --- --- --- 10 negative

70cards --- --- 2 negative 6 positive

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770 F) gcm3 (lbin3 ) 16746 (00605) 16359 (00591) 16691 (00603) 16663 (00602)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties

Sm 1cm 2 (psi) --- 49 (71) --- 64

em --- 19 --- 68

44 (64)--- 49 (71) ---Sb Ncm 2 (psi)

68eb --- 19 ---

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-49 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) End-of-mix viscosities and pot life improved as changes were made to IDP plasticizer use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH and Monsanto AN End-of-mix viscosity for batch SB-141 (HMX) was 7 kP at 520C (125 0 F) and pot life was greater than 37 h

(2) Faster burning rates were achieved as the HNX level was increased as the Gulf Oil AN was replaced by US Steel AN and then by Monsanto AN and as the hammer mill ground AP was replaced by the finer fluid energy mill ground AP

(3) Maximum strand burning rate achieved at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) was 081 cms (032 ins) with batch SB-106 (HMX)

(4) Strand pressure exponents on all four formulations were in the range of 027 to 037 Motor pressure exponents were lower than strand pressure exponents These low-pressure exponents are advantageous and meet the goal of lt042

(5) Card gap tests verified that the maximum level-of Class E HMX which meets the card gap requirements for a Class 2 propellant is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt

(6) Measured densities were in the range of 16359 to 16746 gcm3 (00591 to 00605 lbin3) for the four formulations

(7) The JANNAF uniaxial properties were oor with maximum stress values in the range of 44 to 49 Ncm (64 to 71 psi) and strain at maximum stress values in the range of 19 to 68

g Ballistic Evaluation ANHMXAPAIHTPB Systems The candidate alternate propellant containing HMX was evaluated in BATES motor firings at three levels of HMX 150 170 and 175 The 150 HMX formulation yielded the highest measured Isp Theoretical calculations had shown 170 to 175 to be optimum for maximum Isp Data from the BATES motor tests suggests that the actual optimum HMX level is somewhere between 15 and 16 This level of HMX in the propellant has been demonstrated to be within the Class 2 requirement The ballistic test data for the three HMX systems follows

(1) Formulation ANH-12 (150 HMX) Figure 3-17 shows the burning rate KN and pressure exponent for this propellant The BATES motor test data is summarized in Table 3-50

(2) Formulation ANH-39 (170 HMX) The ballistic evaluation test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-18 and Table 3-51

3-117

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104 61524 1 1 1

41016-

-2 2lt E0508-

0 KN -IA BATES MOTOR DATA KN

100 1 -1 0264 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 1000 10

0 0203_ 800 -8 0152 n 0310152 600 6

D 0102 - 400 -4

0051 - 200 - 2

I I I I 100025 1 -2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895 2

PRESSURE Ncm

Figure 3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92

3-n18

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No E-1466 E-1467

Test Date Nov 14 1975 Nov 26 1975

BatchChange No SB-921 SB-922

Nozzle Bt initial 4699 3764 cm (in) (1850) (1482)

Nozzle Dt final 4374 3571 cm (in) (1722) (1406)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 2981 2979 (6572) (6567)

Wp expended kg (ib) 29395 2940

(64806) (6482)

wt expended 986 987

Web thickness cm (in) 45789 4610 (18207) (1815)

tb (burn time) s 735 586

ta (action time) s 764 624

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 310 531 (450) (770)

PC max Ncm2 (psia) 386 731 (560) (1060)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 376 702 (545) (1018)

AP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26245 41056 (38066) (59547)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26779 42285 (38840) (61329)

3-119

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

Pa (3P dttb) Ncm2

(psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

It (1F dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion Ratio

E-1466

Nov 14 1975

SB-921

3511 (5179)

0630 (0248)

2253

2411

14507 (47594)

962

6193679 (1392395)

842675 (189441)

6198003 (1393367)

207921 (21202)

9249

237546 (24223)

70

E-1467

Nov 26 1975

SB-922

7006 (10162)

0787 (0310)

3511

3689

14983 k49156)

1006

6349309 (1427382)

1083497 (24358)

6559790 (147470)

220218 (22456)

916

235526 (24017)

70

3-120

PRESSURE psia

10 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 104 1524 I 6

1016 4

0508 0- 2

u KN A BATES MOTOR TESTS N

0254 - 1000 10lt 2 0 5x 10 MOTOR TESTS 8 - 1

0203800g- 8

Z 0152 n 037 600 6 z z

0102 400 4

0051 -- 200 2

I I1 -2

0025 69 138 345 690 1379 t 3447 6895

-PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 AHHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-141

3-121

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 PropellantTable 3-51

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

E-1490E-1489Run No

62376 62476Test Date

SB-1412 SB-1411BatchChange No

352684572Nozzle Dt initial cm (in) (1800) (13885)

3444Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 4531

(1784) (1356)

30133017W loaded kg (ib) (6651) (6643)

29332938Wp expended kg (lb) (6477) (6466)

97339738 wt expended

Web thickness cm (in) 4633 4643 (1824) (1828)

570747tb (burn time) s

638 ta (action time) S

794

Pc initialNem2 (psia) 345 683 (500) (990)

362 Pc maximum Ncm2 (psia) 752 (525) (1090)

Pc final Ncm2 N(psia) 324 649 (470) (942)

41665fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 25961 (37654) (6043)

ft dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26554 42802 (6208)(38514)

Pc ( P dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 347 731 (524) (1060)

3-122

Table 3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

r at P0 cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

F dt (tb) Ns (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

it cfF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion ratio (E)

De cm (in)

2Ae cm (in2 )

3-123

E-1489 E-1490

62376 62476

SB-1412 SB-1411

0620 0815 (0244) (0321)

2330 3989

2395 4077

143Q7 13540 (46940) (44421)

945 895

5979680 6258348 (1344286) (1406933)

8007 10978 (1800) (2468)

60958 64441 (13704) (14487) 202056 21388

(20604) (2181)

887 872

23183 22810 (2364) (2326)

716 716

12233 9426 (4816) (3711)

117522 69781 (18216) (10816)

(3) Formulation ANH-18 (175 HMX) The ballistic evaluation

test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-19 and Table 3-52

h Summary Two ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant formulations were developed that conformed to the program constraints for 3 wt HCl in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards classification These two formulations are ANH-12 (15 wt Class E HMX) and ANH-33 (17 wt Class E HMX) Table 3-53 summarizes and compares the properties of these two formulations versus the program goals Both formulations met the goals for pressure exponent and hazard classification but not the goal for burning rateor delivered vacuum I

The following summarizes the status of the ANH4XAPAlHTPB propellant development

(1) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic propellants

(2) Demonstrated the propellant is Class 2 with levels of Class E HMX up to 17 wt

(3) Demonstrated good castability and pot life greater than 37 h for formulations with 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(4) Successfully loaded and test fired 45-kg (10-1b) motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with formulations containing 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(5) Demonstrated a delivered vacuum Isp (E = 716) of 23752 N-skg (2422 s) with formulation ANH-12

(6) Demonstrated a BATES motor burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) and a pressure exponent of 037 with formulation ANH-33

(7) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

(8) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 150 and 170

11 Baseline PBAN Propellant Modification

The current baseline propellant system in the Shuttle SRM is

an 86 solids 16 aluminum PBAN propellant developed by the Thiokol Corporation This baseline propellant has a burning rate of approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) pressure In order to simplify the task of matching the burning rates of the alternate propellant and the PBAN baseline-propellant at 400Ncm2 (580 psia)

-3-124

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 103

1524 I 6

1016 - 4

A BATES MOTOR DATA 0508 - 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 20508 n =031

E -_ Ko

U IN

u- 0254 - -1000 10shy0203 -800 8

oD 0 z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0102 - 400 4

0051 200 2

0025 I I I0 - 2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Figure 3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-106

3-125

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HNX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

Nozzle Dt initial 4592 3543 cm (in) (1808) (1395)

Nozzle Dt final 4463 3388 cm (in) (1757) (1334)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3022 3023 (6662) (6664)

Wp expended kg (ib) 2956 2957

(6516) (6519)

Wt expended 9781 9782

Web thickness cm (in) 4615 4615 (1817) (1817)

tb (burn time) s 788 - 628

ta (action time) s 818 665

PC initial Ncm2 (psia) 248 483 (360) (700)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 352 717 (510) (1040)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 296 622 (430) (902)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 262146 42991 (380212) (62353)

fp dt (ta) N-scm 2 (lb-s) 265874 44074 (385619) (63924)

3-126

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HMX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 1471 3026 (4825) (9929)

r at Pc cms (ins) 0587 0734 (0231) (0289)

KN initial 2353 3953

KN average 2421 4131

C ms (fts) 14159 13741 (46425) (45083)

C efficiency 945 916

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 599055 6320560 (134673) (1420919)

F (fF dttb) N (ib) 7602 100645 (1709) (22626)

it (fF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s) 608823 6498885 (136869) (1461008)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 201478 215001 (20545) (21924)

Isp efficiency 8901 8868

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s) 231761 229240 (23633) (23376)

Expansion ratio 71 72

3-127

Table 3-53 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goal

Achieved Value

Alternate Propellant SB-92 (HMX) SB-141 (HMX)

Property Goal ANH-12 ANH-33 (15 HMX) (17 HMX)

Burning Rate at 089 0785 0813 690 Ncm 2 (035) (0309) (032) (1000 psia) BATES Motor cms (ins)

Pressure Exponent lt042 032 037 BATES motor

Delivered Vacuum 2403 23732 23183 Isp N-skg (s) (gt245) (2422) (2364)

71)

HCl in Exhaust 3

Meets Card Gap Requirement for Class 2 yes yes Class 2 required (negative (negative

at 30 cards) at 30 cards)

pressure it was decided to miodify the baseline propellant system to

meet a burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) This modified baseline applies to the dual propellant concept with the alternate propellant only It does not apply to the current Shuttle design requirements The 081 cms (03 ins) burning rate has been achieved and demonstrated in 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings The modified PBAN formulation is referred to in this report as the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

In modifying the basic PBAN formulation to meet the new burning

rate requirement a study was made of the effect on the burning rate of adjusting the Fe203 burning rate catalyst concentration and the

particle size blend of the AP oxidizer The desired burning rate was achieved with a formulation containing a biomodal blend of

Table 3-54 gives the final formulationoxidizer and 0 Fe203 the density and some burning characteristics of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

3-128

Table 3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend

Ingredients Wt

Ammonium perchlorate

200 pm 4900 10 pm 2100

Aluminum (Alcoa 1230) 1600

PBAN polymer 1204

DER-331 196

10000

Density 2500 (770F) = 17743 gcm3 (00641 lbin3 ) Burn Rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 081 cms (032 ins) Pressure exponent n = 0228 at I

345 Ncm 2 (00 psia) lt Pc lt 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

The burning rate of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant was verified by test firing several 5 x 10 motors using 45 kg (-10 lb) of propellant over a range of pressures Figure 3-20 shows the burning rates and corresponding Kn values The burning rate equation for this modified PBAN propellant based on the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings is

r = 00668 PC0228

3-129

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 8104

1524 6

1016- 4

0508 - 2

E K - 0 5x 10 MOTOR DATAshy

0254 - 1000 10 - 1

0203 n = 0228 800 8 z 0152- a = 00668 600 6

z z 0102 -400 4

200 20051

0025 _I _I I I 10-2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant)

Batch No SB-78

3-130

SECTION IV

UNWORKED AREAS

The program as originally planned included a significant effort in the development of the candidate alternate propellant physical propshyerties and checks to verify adequacy of candidate alternate propellant in the bipropellant grain The reduction of funds and scopeof the program left many of these tasks unworked If the alternate propelshylant concept for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Motor is pursued on another program then the following unworked areas should be worked

(1) Candidate alternate propellant physical property improvement

(2) Physical property characterization of unaged alternate

propellant

(3) Aging of alternate propellant

(4) Bipropellant interface bond unaged and aged

(5) Alternate propellant insulation interface bond unaged and aged

(6) Performance tests at altitude on candidate alternate propellant

(7) Motor tests with bipropellant grain

(8) Characterization of alternate propellant safety properties

The generally poor physical properties (primarily low strain) measured with both the ANAPAlHTPB and the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propelshylants are believed due primarily to the following causes

(1) Poor bond of the HTPB binder to the oxidizer particles

AN and HMX

(2) Crosslinking of the R-45 HTPB polymer through the double bonds caused by the acidity of AN

The approach planned to solve the poor bonding properties to the oxidizer particles was development of bonding agents for both the AN and the HMX Aerojet Solid Propulsion Company has demonstrated significantly improved physical properties in HMXAPAlHTPB propellants using polyureas as bonding agents Epoxides and polyureas were considered as candidate bonding agents for the AN Development of an acid scavengershywas considered as one of the approaches to the second cause of the poor physicals

4-1

SECTION V

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this alternate propellant development effort led to the following general conclusions

(1) It is technically feasible to minimize (lt_3 wt ) release of HCl above 1981 km (65000 ft)

(2) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants Formushylation ANH-12 is the best formulation developed to date

(3) Propellant with 17 wt Class E HMX meets card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(4) The basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant is the second most promshyising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants

(5) More than 1000 wt AP (gt3 HCI in propellant exhaust) is required in the ANAPAlHTPB propellant to meet the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) Formulation AN-71 with 2000 wt AP is the best formulation of this type developed to date

(6) The basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant (0 HCl) is the least promising candidate and probably not viable for achieving program goals

(7) A few of AP is essential to achieve good aluminum comshybustion

(8) Good castability and acceptable pot life were achieved with all three basic alternate propellants

(9) Additional development effort is needed to improve the physical properties of any of the candidate propellants

(10) The small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justify the potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradashytion

(11) The Monsanto phase stabilized E-2 AN is the preferred AN type because it has the best physical and handling propershyties at comparable cost compared to other AN types

(12) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 15 and 17

5-I

(13) With additional effort to optimize the formulation with regard to HMX level burning rate modifier level and oxidizer particle size the program goals ban be met with an ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant system

5-2

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM

SOLUBILITY OF MTN INI HYDROCARBON BINDER

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

MMORANDUM

From 2051BCTo 563 Via 205

Subj Solubility of MTN in hydrocarbon binder

1 A study was conducted to determine if MTN could be used in the R45 binder system for the NASA II propellant Dicetyladipate (DOA) would be used for a co-solvent

2 Figure 1 is a portion of a phase diagram for the MTN-DOA-R45 system Areas to the right of the curve are two phase Areas to the left of the curve are single phase The effect of temperature is also shown

3 For Figure 2 TP90B was used instead of DOA TP90B is not as effective a co-solvent as DOA

4 Beccause PPG-1225 (a polypropylene glycol) is soluble both in R45 afidMTN it also was invesrigated PFG-1225 has an advantage over DOA in that it is a reactive polymer and could contribute to the mechanical strength as well as providingco-solubility In Figure 3 a 5050 mixture of R45 and PGshy1225 was used for the starting material The solubility of MTN was determined Because PPG-1225 was not a very goodco-solvent DOA was added to enhance the solubility Areas to the right of the curve are two phase and areas to the left of the curve are single phase

5 For Figure 4 a starting material of 733 R-45 and 261 PPG-1225 was used DOA was used to enhance the solubility of MTN in the system

6 It was determined that adiponitrile was not solulle in R45 and therefore could not be used to replace DOA

7 It was determined that R-18 (a polyglycol adipate) was not soluble in R45 and therefore could not be used to replacePPG-1225

8 A sample from Figure 1 was cured with IPDI This will be used to evaluate the long term effect of the nitrate ester on the binder system

Enclosure (1)

A-i

OrNA PALi I

1

ROOM--H- 2 - I

____

-OM I H j 1 35 TEMPERATURE i TI I ItI

I I I I

25

I 3 0 Z _--_ _ _

i i ii

5 n

JI t II it

t - -- -

151 1 1H - IL I

i s _ _

I- III I I I

715

MTffN 20 2 P

Figure 1 So bility of DOA and TN plusmnn R-A5

A-2

- -

40

Lj

r -

11- f

- - iutm

30 HH

-4-

__I_ ____

~ I

~vt

_

[ I_ _ iJ

25 _ _ _

1 1kH I __ _ _ _- _ _ __ _ _

-H 71

- r T--- W 4J-W-L -- t ___ __

_ _ _ __ _ _

q----i- -

52

Figure2 Solubility o f P9BadM1 nR4

A-3

iplusmn II1 -shyI~hhiI4plusmnplusmnt~~t~ -

LL J-

rO zt_-il 4 it-T i -- - -- --a -- 4- shy

-- 4 tL ---L-C-- 1 ------ 13-F- --shy

--- 4 i

I _

I I --0F

L II

it I _ _ _- _ I___

I- - -- - - - ---- shy--_ _ __ __-L J _ _

I - i t1 hIIt -____I j I

-+4 4 1 - - - -I 7 _ -J shy______ _ 2---2--I_lc_

L L rI-T- r

4 -I - -t -- u

10 15 20 25 30 N

Figure 3 Solubility of DOA and LMN in 50 R-4550 PG-1225

A-4

1

35 f

it-lt-ir

II I II

303i-- h

4o

z5-11144_FLI Lb deg T - shy i

bull

25

- -

20

I

- i11 fI1I

Ii JIf j -shy

1 iifIF

I I j I

dstkj tji--4

-4--4 1

1

I0tLLIL t

I

1wi

IFI 4 I

r

iiL -shy plusmn4 4 - H _

64211

I

L3

M -44

t

-i-

__

5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 4 ltSolubility of DOA and MTN in 733 R-45267 PPG-1225

A-5

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

9 -Ifan 88 (or 84) solids loaded 6 polymeric binder system will give acceptable physical properties then the

following formulations should be investigated

R-45 PPG1225 DA MT__N Al AP 1HM AN

10 4360 - -40 20 15 20 44 16 36 24 15 10 20 43

5360 - 40 20 15 10 10 44 1-6 36 24 15 10 10 53

15 10 20 3960 - 66 34 44 16 62 38 15 10 20 39

To properly evaluate these they should be compared to

AL AP HMK ANR-45 DOA 5360 60 15 10 20

10 53100 20 15 20

A quick look at some of the theoretical results to date indishycate that these substit-utions of - MTNfor Inert polymer -may result ina gain of about18 pounds seclb in impulse and a gain of 0001 poundscu in in density

C EJOHNSON

Copy to 205 2051BC 2051C1 TDI

A-6

PU BLICATION79-29

Page 9: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

ABSTRACT

This report documents the work done by the Caltech-Jet PropulsionLaboratory of NASA for the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA on a Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program The work was done as a Phase I follow-on effort to a previous Phase 0 feasibility study The program was designed to investigate three candidate propellant systems for the Shuttle Booster Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) which would eliminate or greatly reducethe amount of HC produced in the exhaust of the Shuttle SRM Ammonium nitrate was selected for consideration as the main oxidizer with ammonium perchlorate and the nitramine cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine (HMX) as secondary oxidizers The amount of ammonium perchlorate used was limited to an amount which would produce an exhaust containing no more than 3 HC1

Development work was carried out on three basic candidate propellantsystems (1) a mixed oxidizer of ammonium nitrate and ammonium perchlorate (2) a mixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate and HMX and (3) amixed oxidizer consisting of ammonium nitrate ammonium perchlorate and HMX All three systems contained 15 aluminum powder and had a total solids loading of 88 A urethane binder based on a hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene cured with a diisocyanate was selected as the binder system

The first and third propellant systems outlined above were developed to the point of successful scale-up and loading of 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes and successful test firing of 45-kg (10-1b) test motors and 32-kg(70-1b) BATES motors The second propellant system the ANHMX oxidizer system received only very limited development due to a out-back in both the funds and schedule time initially planned for this program All three propellants had satisfactory processing characteristics however at the 88 solids loading

The first and third propellant systems (the ANAP and the ANHMXAPoxidizer systems) were both also subjected to hazard testing and were demonstrated to conform to Class 2 hazard classification with HMX levels up to 17 wt in the HMX-containing propellant The second oxidizer combination system (the ANHMX) was not characterized as to hazards classification for the reasons mentioned earlier

The utilization of the low-Hl-producing alternate propellant was planned to be in ccmbinatidn with the current baseline PBAN propellantin a dual propellant design Therefore mutual compatibility between the two propellants was essential In order to lessen the severity of the burning rate requirement for the alternate propellant it was decided to decrease the burning rate specification for the PBAN baseline propellant to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) A modified baseline PBAN propellant formulation was therefore developed to conform to the lower burning rate specification It should be pointed out here that this modified baseline propellant system applies only to the dual propellantgrain design and does not relate in any way to the specifications of the present system being developed for the current Shuttle SRM The ballistic properties of the modified baseline PBAN propellant were demonstrated in several 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

vii

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION - 1-1

II SUMMARY- 2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPA1HTPB ------------------------- 2-2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXAlHTPB ------------------------ 2-2

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB --------------------- 2-2

D SYSTEM NO 4 MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE --------------- 2-3

III PHASE I PROGRAM -------------------------------------------- 3-1

A OBJECTIVE -------------------------------------------- 3-1

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS ---------------------------------- 3-1

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS ------------------------- 3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA ------------------------------------- 3-2

E PROGRAM APPROACH -------------------------------------- 3-2

F NOS PARTICIPATION ------------------------------------- 3-5

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE ------------ ---------------------- 3-5

H DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------- 3-6

IV UNWORKED AREAS --------------------------------------------- 4-1

V CONCLUSIONS ------------------------------------------------ 5-1

APPENDIX

A SOLUBILITY OF MTN IN HYDROCARBON BINDER -------------- A-i

Figures

3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB --------- 3-14

3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5 AP in ANAPAlHTPB --------- 315

ix

3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPAlHTPB -------------- 3-16

3-4 Specific Volume- of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature--------------------------------------- 3-26

3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ---------------------- 3-31

3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Gulf AN) ------------------- 3-39

3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-40

3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ---------------------------- 44

3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73 ---------------- 57

3-10 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74 ------ 3-58

3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTBP Propellants ---------------------------- 3-65

3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140 --------------- 74

3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-89

3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (HMX) Formulation ANH-9 ----------------------------------- 3-93

3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN ---------- 3-96

3-16 Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------ 3-98

3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92 -------------------------------------- 3-118

3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-11 ------------------------------------- 3-121

3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-l06 ------------------------------------- 3-125

x

3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant) Batch No SB-78 -------------------------------------- 3130

Tables

21 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ---------------------------------- 2-4

22 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-5

23 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-6

3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN ------------------------------------------- 3-7

3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN --------------------------------------- 3-9

3-3 Propellant Exhaust Composition ----------------------- 3-13

3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations ----------------------------------- 3-18

3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-20

3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-21

3-7 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received Properties ------------------------------------------- 3-23

3-8 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics -------------------------------------- 3-24

3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-28

3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P---------------------------------------- 3-32

3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-33

3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPA1HTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-36

3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-38

xi

3-14 Evaluation of-Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 42

3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 43

3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants -------------------------- 45

3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------- 48

3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------ 3-50

3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB

Propellants ------------------------------------------ 3-52

3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations --------- 54

3-21 BATES-Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant ---- 3-59

3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant ---- 3-61

3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Level Variations ----- 3-66

3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (2 Ballistic Modifier) ------------------- 3-68

3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation ---------- 3-70

3-26 BATES Motor Test Data Summary AN-71 Propellant ------ 3-72

3-27 AN4APAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goals --------------------------------------------- 3-75

3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests -Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------ 3-76

3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-77

3-30 ANHMXHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX) --------------- 3-79

3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------------ 3-81

3-32 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHNXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-82

xii

3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests ----------------------------------------shy 3-83

3-34 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) ------------------------------shy 3-85

3-35 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX) -----------------------------shy 3-87

3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)-----------shy 3-90

3-37 ANHNXADHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation ----------------------------- 3-91

3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX DOA Plasticizer)------------- 3-94

3-39 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX IDP Plasticizer)------------- 3-95

3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Particle Size Variation (MX) ------- ------------------------- 3-97

3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - BallisticModifier Particle Size Variation ------------------------------ 3-99

3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-101

3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data --------------------------------- 3-103

3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A With Class E)---------------------------------------- 3104

3-45 ANHMXAPAiHTPB Formulation - HMX Level (Class E HMX) ---------------------------------------- 3-106

t46-PL Hazard Test Data (Class E)----------------------- 3-107

M3-47 NOS Space ShuttleAlternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation ----------------------- 3-109

3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured -------- 3-111

3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

ANHMXAPHTPB Propellant Type ----------------------- 3-113

3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant ---- 3-119

3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-33 Propellant ---- 3-122

3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-18 Propellant ---- 3-126

xiii

3-53 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties-vs Goal ----------------------------------- 3-128

3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend --------------------------- --------------------- 3-129

xiv

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

This report presents results from the JPL study to investigatethe feasibility of developing an acceptable alternate propellant systemfor the Shuttle solid rocket motor (SEM) boosters based on the non-chlorine containing oxidizer ammonium nitrate (AN) The following basic criteria for this Phase 0 feasibility study were established by the NASA-MSFC

(1) A five-month feasibility study would be undertaken

(2) Any candidate propellants must conform to a hazards classishyfication of Class 2 as determined by card gap tests

(3) The propellant exhaust must not contain more than 3 HC Zero HCl was to be the goal

Following the above guidelines the JPL began a Phase Zero fiveshymonth feasibility program in September of 1974 (Ref 1) JPL was directedby MSFC to investigate four basic propellant systems mutually agreed upon by MSFC and JPL These four basic propellant systems were the following

(1) AN20 Albinder

(2) AN10 Albinder

(3) AN5 AP20 Albinder

(4) AN5 AP10 Albinder

Toward the end of the Phase 0 program the above four basic proshypellants had been developed to a point of scale-up of each formulation to 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes loading and test firing of 227-kg(5-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests Programresults at this point had demonstrated that

(1) Good processability of an 88 solids loaded ammonium nitrate propellant was possible (Previous to this workthe maximum solids achieved with ammonium nitrate systems was approximately 80)

(2) A few percent (5 to 10) of ammonium perchlorate as a co-oxidizer in the ammonium nitrate systems was essential to satisfactory aluminum combustion

(3) An aluminum content of 20 in the ammonium nitrate system was considerably above optimum for maximum delivered specific impulse

With these results serving as new guidelines a fifth formulation was developed and evaluated in BATES motor tests This propellant formulation

1-1

was an 88 solids formulation of the following composition 63 AN10 AP15 Al12 HTPB binder

The main conclusion drawn from the results of this five-month feasibility study was that with the necessary time and funds the develshyopment of an alternate propellant system for the Shuttle SRM based largely on ammonium nitrate as the oxidizer was feasible The fifth propellant described above was selected as a baseline candidate system and served as the basis for establishing the goals and criteria for a Phase I follow-on effort to this feasibility study

The concept for the utilization of the alternate propellant was a dual propellant solid rocket motor -The Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor would be manufactured containing the alternate low-HCl propellant first as an outer layer of propellant followed by an inner layer of the current PBAN propellant modified to the new burning rate requirement During a Shuttle vehicle launch the baseline PBAN propellant would burn for the first phase of Shuttle Booster operation At an altitude of approxshyimately 1981 km (65000 ft) the PBAN propellant would be expended and the burning transitioned into the low-HCl (less than 3 by weight of the exhaust products) alternate propellant The feasibility of a satisshyfactory transition from a propellant with an all-ammonium perchlorate oxidizer to one consisting primarily of ammonium nitrate oxidizer was also demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by successfully manufacshyturing and test firing a dual propellant BATES motor charge

1-2

SECTION II

SUMMARY

This summary is a general over-view of the Alternate Propellant Program A more detailed summary of each respective area of effort is included in the main body of this report The primary objective of the program was to develop a candidate alternate propellant for the Shuttle SRM boosters which would eliminate or minimize the HCl in the exhaust from the solid propellant boosters during operations above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude A set of program constraints was defined to serve as guidelines for the Phase I program effort Among the constraints was the requirements of a Class 2 hazards classification for any candidate propellant The detailed constraints have been outlined in the foregoing pages Along with these program guidelines specific goals were estabshylished that were as follows

(1) Propellant burning rate = 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) Propellant pressure exponent of the burning rate lt 042

(3) Vacuum delivered specific impulse gt 2402 N-skg (245 s) at an expansion ratio of 716

(4) Matched burning rates of the alternate propellant and the baseline PBAN propellant system at 400 Ncm2 (580 psia)

(5) HCl content of the propellant exhaust lt 3

Goal (4) also introduced the requirement of modifying the burning rate of the existing Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a burning rate requirement consistent with the foregoing goals for the alternate proshypellant The burning rate requirement for the modified Shuttle baseline propellant PBAN propellant was established to be 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) chamber pressure

Three basic propellant systems were defined as candidate systems to be developed within these constraints and guidelines The three systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

Based on the results from the Phase 0 program that preceded this Phase I program it was established that the aluminum content would be held constant at 15 wt in all formulations Also the AP content of the No 1 and No 3 system was to be 10 A status summary of each of the three alternate propellant systems and the modified PBAN Shuttle baseline propellant follows

2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPAlHTPB

This propellant system contains 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) and 15 aluminum powder The development has progressed through the static testing of 32-kg (70-1b) propellant charges in the BATES motor static testing being limited to sea level conditions A vacuum delivered Isp at an expansion ratio eof 70 corrected from the sea level data of 2281 N-skg (2326 s) has been demonstrated This measured value of Is is equivalent to 888 of the theoretical value at the test condiions A burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) of 0546 cms (0215 ins) with a pressure exponent of the burning rate of 0278 has also been demonstrated with BATES motor firings As can be seen the Isp and burning rate goals have not been attained whereas the pressure exponent goal has been exceeded by a considerable margin It is doubtful at this point whether the Isp or the burning rate goals can be achieved with this basic system within the present program conshystraints One way of achieving the ballistic goals would be to increase the AP content of this propellant To do so however would increase the HC content of the exhaust above that of the current exhaust conshystraint of not more than 3 wt of HC1

In order to meet the specific impulse and burning rate goals a propellant formulation containing 20 wt of AP was developed and tested first in 45-kg (10-1b) motors followed by two 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings The specific impulse goal of 2402 N-hkg (245 s) was attained with this propellant The burning rate at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) exceeded the 089-cms (035-ins) goal A burning rate of 097 cms (038 ins) was measured The pressure exponent measure was 048 which is higher than the goal However it is believed that this pressure exponent can be reduced The HC1 content in the exhaust at an expansion ratio of 716 is calculated to be 6 wt This 6 HC1 still represents an 80 reduction in the HC1 content from that of the baseline PBAN propellant system The-hazards classification of the ANAPA1HTPB system is Class 2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXA1HTPB

This system contains 15 aluminum also but no AP Due to a cutback in projected program funds however thedecision was made to discontinue the development of this system This decision was made very early in the development phase of this propellant and therefore no useful ballistic data is available at this time

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB

Of the three alternate propellant systems initially planned for development this system is the best candidate to date for meeting all the program goals Theoretical calculations showed that the maximum specific impulse for this propellant system was in the range of 170 to 175 HMX (Table 3-2) Therefore this system with three levels of HMX was developed scaled up to 113-kg (250-1b) mixes and loaded and test fired in 45-kg (10-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b)

2-2

BATES motor firing Of the three levels of HMX evaluated in motor firing the highest ISD was measured with the formulation containing 15 wt HMX showing that the experimental optimum HMX level- is somewhat less than 17 wt for this system The 15 and 17 wt HMX formulations were demonstrated to be Class 2 whereas the 175 wt HMX propellant was borderline Class 7

Preliminary results from Crawford Bomb burning rates showed a burning rate of 0950 cms (0374 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) for the 17 wt HMX formulation Time did not permit verifying this burning rate in motor tests prior to committing to the scale-up and loading of the 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors However indications -were that the 089-cms (035-ins) burning rate would be achieved in motor tests with 3 ballistic modifier in the formulation -- a cutback from the 4 in the other two HMX formulations In the interest of time a reduction in the ballistic modifier (a mixed burning rate catalyst) of 1 was made in the scale-up propellant batch from which the BATES motors were loaded Unfortunately this was too large a reduction in modifier and test results from firing the BATES motors showed a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) for the 17 wt HMX formulation (ANH-33)

The formulations of the five candidate alternate propellants and the modified PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 2-1 Table 2-2 lists the theoretical ballistic properties of the six propelshylants and also the HCi and A1203 (particulates) contents Table 2-3 summarizes the measured performance values as determined by BATES motor firings The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions with nozzle expansion ratios of 716 The measured sea level values were then corrected to vacuum values by the following equation

PeAe I vac ms =-I5 pact ms

D SYSTEM NO i MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE

The work statement of this Alternate Propqllant Program also called for modifying the current Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) while not changing the major ballistic properties such as I__ of the system This effort has been completed and the 081-cms (032-ins) burning rate met and demonstrated in motor firings The desired modification was accomplished by removing the iron oxide burningshyrate catalysts (Fe203 ) and adjusting the particle size blend of the oxidizer The burning-rate equation for this modified baseline is r = 00668 Pc0 228

A detailed discussion of the three candiate alternate propellant systems as well as the total program effort follows

2-3

Ingredients

Solids

AN

AP

HMX (Class E)

Al

Fe203

AD

CU-0202 P

Binder

HTPBe

PBANd

Table 2-1 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

TP-H1148a AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

86 88 88 88 88 88

-- 5900 5100 44o0 4300 4150

6960 1000 2000 1000 1000 1000

-- -- -- 1500 1700 1750

1600 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

040 b -- -- -- -shy

-- 200 -- 200 100 200

-- 200 200 200 200 200

-- 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

1400 -- -- -shy

aCurrent Shuttle baseline propellant also to be adjusted

bTo be adjusted

CCured with a diisocyanate (IPDI)

dCured with an epoxy (Der-331)

Table 2-2 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Parameter TP-H1148 AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Tf K 3471 2695 2845 2748 2765 2756

Te K

C ms (fts)

Isp0 N-skg (s)

2327

1371 (5155)

25723 (2623)

1563

1481 (4860)

24203 (2468)

1678

1568 (4949)

24624 (2511)

1570

1505 (4937)

24507 (2499)

1575

1513 (4965)

24634 (2512)

1571

1509 (4950)

24556 (2504)

U Is vac (a E 716)N-skg (s)

27135 (2767)

25684 (2619)

26115 (2663)

26007 (2652)

26144 (2666)

26066 (2658)

HC in exhaust 209 303 61 303 303 303

A1203 in exhaust 302 283 283 283 283 28

Table 2-3 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Ballistic Property

Program Goal

AN-25

Candidate Propellant Test Resultsa

AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

C ms (fts) - 1432 1460 1450 1431 1415

(4700) (4791) (4759) (4694) (4643)

C efficiency - 953 972 962 945 945

Isp vac at E = 716 N-skg (s)

_gt2403 (245)

22849 (2330)

24026 (2450)

23752 (2422)

23183 (2364)

23173 (2363)

Isp efficiency 888 923 912 887 8901

Burning rate cms at 690 Ncm2 (ins at 1000 psia)

gt_089 (035)

053 (021)

097 (0 38 )b

079 (031)

081 (032)

074 (029)

Pressure exponent n lt042 028 048 031 037 031

Hazard

classification 2 2 2 2 2 7 (marginal)

aTest data from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings at PC 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

bData point based on 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

SECTION III

PHASE I PROGRAM

A OBJECTIVE

The program objective of the Phase I program the results of which are documented in this report was to develop an alternate propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster motors which would eliminate or minimize the H1 in the exhaust from the motors

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS

The Phase I development effort was conducted within some very specific constraints These program constraints were

(1) Minimize the design impact on the present solid booster

(2) Eliminate or minimize Llt 3) the HC1 release from the booster motors during operation above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude

(3) Any candidate alternate propellant must confori to a Class 2 hazards classification

(4) The program was to be conducted within government as a contingency

(5) The payload schedule and cost impact of the Phase I effort on the Shuttle project were to be assessed concurrently

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS

Three basic pandidate propellant systems were selected for consideration in this development program These propellant systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

In addition to the above three completely new propellant systems a modification of the current baseline PBAN propellant was to be made This modification consisted of adjusting the burning rate of the PBAN propellant to a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) [The baseline PBAN propellant burning rate was approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)]

3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA

As has been stated the criteria for the Phase I program effort was established as a result of the Phase 0 feasibility study The scope of effort and propellant performance goals thus established were as follows

(1) Initiate the development of three basic candidate alternate propellant systems

(2) Modify the current Shuttle baseline PHAN propellant to meet

the new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins)

(3) The propellant performance goals were

(a) Burning rate = 689 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(b) Pressure exponent lt 042

(c) Delivered vacuum specific impulse at an expansion ratio of 716 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(d) Theburning rates of the candidate alternate propellants and the Shuttle baseline PBAN propellant should be matched at a pressure of 400 Ncm 2 (580 psia)

(e) HCI in the exhaust _ 3

(4) The development program was to include in addition to - the above

(a) Processing studies

(b) Physical property studies

(c) ropellant aging studies

(d) Propellant hazards classification testing

(e) Propellant performance testing

(f) Investigation of the compatibility between the alternate propellant and the current baseline PBAN propellant and between the alternate propellant and the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) insulation

E PROGRAM APPROACH

The following outline details the general approach taken in the investigation of the various aspects of this program

3-2

1 Theoretical Studies

() Maximize delivered specific impulse at 88 solids

(a) Aluminum content

(b) HMX content

(c) High-energy plasticizer content (TMETN)

2 Burning Rate Studies 089 cms (035 ins) Goal

(1) Particle size blend of oxidizer

(2) Investigate and compare catalyst type and concentration

(a) Fe203

(b) Ferrocene

(c) Milori blue

(d) CU-0202 P shy

(e) Inert plasticizer level (DOA)

(f) High-energy plasticizer (TMETN)

(g) HMX

(h) Zirconium powder

(i) Other

Burning rates to be determined via Crawford Bomb strand burning and 5 x 6 motor tests

3 Physical Property Studies

(1) Binder stoichiometry

(2) Plasticizer level and type

(a) Free plasticizer

(b) Internal plasticizer (chemically bonded)

(3) Degree of crosslinking

(4) Cure time and temperature

3-3

Evaluate properties Tensile strength

Elongation

Modulus

Hardness

Density

4 Processing Studies

(1) Process variables

(a) Mixer speeds

(b) Mix duration

(c) Ingredient addition sequence

(d) Other

5 Compatibility Studies

(1) PBAN propellant to alternate propellant bond

(a) As cured surfaces

(b) Machined surfaces

(2) Alternate propellant to insulation bond

6 Safety Hazard Tests

(I) Card gap

(2) Impact

(3) Auto-ignition shy

(4) Blast~ng cap

(5) Friction sensitivity

(6) Spark sensitivity

3-4

7 Aging Studies

(1) Propellant aging-physical properties

(a) Ambient temperature

(2) Propellant-propellant bond

(a) Ambient temperature

8 Motor Testing

(1) 5 x 6 motors - pressure only

(2) BATES motors - pressure and thrust

9 Shuttle Baseiine Propellant Modification

Adjust burning rate to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

F NOS PARTICIPATION

The Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head Maryland wLs funded by JPL to participate in certain aspects of the Alternate Propellant Program This funding of the NOS was a relatively low level of funding and designed to support the program through the investigation of certain very specific tasks The general areas of the NOS participation were

(1) Investigation of the solubility of the high-energy plasticizer TMETN in (a) R-45 HTPB polymer and (b) R-45 HTPB polymerDOA plasticizer

(2) Determine the limits of TMETN for a Class 2 propellant in an (a) all AN propellant system (b) ANAP system and (c) ANAPHMX system

(3) Investigation of the limits of HMX Ior a Class 2 inert binder propellent

(4) Hazards testing of candidate propellant formulations

(5) Investigation of HMX and AP particle size ef~eots and ballistic modifier effects on candidate propellant ballistics

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE

The Phase I effort of the Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program began April 1 1975 as an 18-month program The program schedule was later revised and lengthened to a 30-month program Much later in the program (April 1976) following several revisions to the program

3-5

schedule the planned scope of effort was reduced and the schedule cut to

conclude the program on June 30 1976 This reduction in scope and schedule

time became necessary due to a cut in the anticipated program funds

H DISCUSSION

Theoretical Studies

As has been discussed in the introduction to this report the Phase 0 feasibility study (Ref 1) results established the basis for

the Phase I effort Theoretical studies had been conducted during the Phase 0 work analyzing the effects of solids loading oxidizer ratios

binder composition etc on the thermoballistic properties of the proshy

pellant types under consideration Therefore at the start of the Phase I

program effort the guidelines for formulating the candidate alternate propellants to be developed were fairly well defined Consequently the

theoretical studies reported here involved only formulations with certain

constant parameters such as 88 total solids 15 aluminum and a binder based on plasticized HTPB

Table 3-1 gives summary tabulations of the primary thermoballistic properties of a number of candidate formulations containing AN AP and

HMX as oxidizers and the binder plasticized with the high-energy plasticizer

TMETN Iron oxide at the 1 level was included as a burning rate modifier The relevant Shuttle SRM baseline PBAN propellant properties are also shown in the table for reference As can be seen the formulation containing 25 HMX 10 AP and 25 TMETN plasticizer in the binder (12 HTPB binder) matches within 49 N-skg (05-s) specific impulse to that of the Shuttle baseline propellant That formulation however would be a Class 7 proshy

pellant and therefore could not be considered as a candidate

Table 3A2 shows the effects of varying the AP content the HMX conshy

tent and the type and content of the burning rate modifiers A combination

of ammonium dichromate (AD) and copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was selected

as the primary burning rate modifiers for this work Approximately two seconds of impulse difference is calculated for equal amounts of Fe203 and mixed AD and CU-0202 P (4 Fe203 versus 2 AD and 2 CU-0202 P) The calculations also show that for the 88 total solids system with 15 aluminum and 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) tpe theoretical optimum amount of HMX for maximum impulse is in the range of 17 to 175 The

experimental optimum HMX level for maximum delivered IsD however

appears to be something less than 17 wt This is eviaenced by the results from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests of propellants containing 150 170 and 175 HMX The measured ballistics of these formulations

are tabulated in Table 2-3 in the summary section of this report As will be seen in Table 2-3 the highest measured Isp with an HMX formulation

was with FormulationNumber ANH-12 which contains 150 HMX

These theoretical calculations referred to above were made using

a JPL computer program based on the minimization of free energy to

calculate both the equilibrium and frozen flow thermoballistic properties

of chemical compositions

3-6

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN

Formulationa Ballistics

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

AN AP HIX Al

TMETN in

Binder Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P T0 K C

ms (fts)

T (Sea Lcve Optimum) N-skg (s)

Vac 1 (c = 7)

N-skg (a)

Shuttle PBAN Baseline Propellantb(Density 17714 gcm 3 00640 lbin3) 3515 1578 (5176) 25752 (2626) 27136 k2767)

62 10 0 15 0 1 2825 1503 (4931) 24536 (2502) 25966 (2648)

62 10 0 15 10 1 2902 1511 (4956) 24674 (2516) 26095 (2661)

62 10 0 15 20 1 2977 1518 (4980) 24791 (2528) 26213 (2673)

62 10 0 15 25 1 2982 1521 (4991) 24850 (2534) 26272 (2679)

62 0 10 15 20 1 2910 1526 (5005) 24870 (2536) 26321 (2684)

52 0 20 15 20 1 2973 1546 (5072) 25174 (2567) 26645 (2717)

47 0 25 15 20 1 3005 1557 (5108) 25321 (2582) 26900 (2743)

62 0 10 15 25 1 2916 1529 (5016) 24929 (2542) 26380 (2690)

52 0 20 15 25 1 2978 1550 (5084) 25233 (257 ) 26704 (2723)

47 0 25 15 25 1 3010 1561 (5120) 25380 (2588) 26860 (2739)

52 10 10 15 10 1 2964 1532 (5028) 24968 (2546) 26419 (2694)

42 10 20 15 10 1 3027 1554 (5100) 25272 (2577) 26753 (2728)

37 10 25 15 10 1 3658 1565 (5136) 25419 (2592) 26909 (2744)

52 10 10 15 20 1 3039 1540 (5052) 25095 (2559) 26519 (2706)

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN (Continuation 1)

Formulationa Ballistics -

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier TMETN Is (Sea Vac L

in C Level Optimum) (E = 7 AN AP HMX Al Binder Fe203 AD CU-0202 P Tc K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

42 10 20 15 20 1 3102 1562 (5124) 25399 (2590) 26870 (2740)

37 10 25 15 20 1 3134 1573 (5160) 25546 (2605) 27037 (2757)

52 10 10 15 25 1 3044 1543 (5063) 25154 (2565) 26596 (2712)

42 10 20 15 25 1 3107 1565 (5135) 25448 (2595) 26929 (2746)

37 10 25 15 25 1 3138 1576 (5171) 25595 (2610) 27086 (2762)

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

bThe Shuttle baseline propellant has 16 Al 86$ total solids

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN

Formulation ballistics

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids)

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Pc = 690 Ncm

2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Moaifier

DensitygcM3

(lbin3 ) AN AP HMX Al

PropellantFormulation

No Fe2 0q AD CU-0202 P To K

C

Ms (fts)

Is (SeaLevel Optimum)

N-skg (s)

Vac ISp(E 7)

N-skg (s)

16634 (00601) 62 10 - 15 1 2728 1500 (4920) 24468 (2495) 25950 (2647)

0 16717 (00604) 61 10 - 15 2 2716 1490 (4887) 24320 (2480) 25801 (2631)

16800 (00607) 56 15 - 15 2 2778 1497 (4913) 24438 (2492) 25929 (2644)

16911 (00611) 51 20 - 15 2 2839 1505 (4938) -24566 (2505) 26046 (2656)

16994 (00614) 46 25 - 15 2 2904 1512 (4962) 24674 (2516) 26164 (2668)

17105 (00618) 41 30 - 15 2 2969 1519 (4985) 24791 (252b) 26282 (2680)

17188 (00621) 36 35 - 15 2 3032 1526 (5007) 24899 (2539) 24390 (2691)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 4 2692 1469 (4820) 24016 (2449) 25478 (2598)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 (AN-25) - 2 2 2695 1481 (4860) 24203 (2468) 25684 (2619)

16745 (0n605) 51 20 - 15 - 2 2841 1513 (4965) 24693 (2518) 26194 (26741)

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 1)

Pl1si~sFormulitiona

Theoreticl Equilibrium Flow Calculations = Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant IS (Sea Vac I gcm3 Formulation C Love Optimum) (c = 7) (lbin 3 ) AN PP HmX Pi No Fe20q AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg ()

16911 (00611) 51 20 15 (AN-71) 2 2845 1508 (4949) 24624 (2511) 26115 (266-)

16828 (00608) 51 20 15 1 1 2841 1511 (4957) 24654 (2514) 26145 (2666)

17160 (00620) 44 10 15 15 4 2748 1492 (4895) 24320 (2480) 25811 (2632)

17216 (00622) 42 10 17 15 4 2756 1495 (4906) 24360 (2484) 25850 (263b)

- ) 415 10 175 15 4 2581 1500 (4921) 25850 (2636)

) 40 10 190 15 4 2794 1495 (4906) 257b2 (2629)

39 10 200 15 4 2776 1490 (4888) 25723 (2623)

17049 (00616) 44 10 15 15 (ANH-12) - 2 2 2748 1504 (4937) 24507 (2499) 2007 (2652)

17077 (00617) 42 10 17 15 2 2 2754 1508 (4947) 24546 (2503) 26056 (2657)

17049 (00616) 4 10 17 15 (ANH-33) 1 2 2765 1513 (4965) 24634 (2512) 26145 (2666)

L

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 2)

BallisticsFormulations

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant is (Sea Vac Is gcm3 Formulation C Level Optimum) M (ibin3 ) AN AP HMX Al No Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

16828 (00608) 44 10 17 15 - - 2779 1525 (5005) 24781 (2527) 26311 (2683)

16994 (00614) 44 10 17 15 - 2 2784 1518 (4981) 24723 (2521) 26243 (2676)

16911 (00611) 44 10 17 15 - 1 1 2778 1522 (4994) 24752 (2524) 26272 (2679)

17077 1509 (4950) 24556 (2504) 26066 (2658)(00617) 415 10 175 15 (ANH-18) - 2 2 2757

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

2 Exhaust Products

The exhaust compositions of the five candidate propellants listed in Table 2-I in the report summary and that of the Shuttle PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 3-3 The exhaust species are shown as weight percent of the total exhaust and the exhaust composition is that at the exit plane of the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 716 calculated as the equilibrium composition

3 Combustion and Burning Rate

Two problems which were anticipated and confirmed as problems early in the Phase 0 program were low combustion efficiency and low burning rates of the aluminized ammonium nitrate propellant These subjects are discussed individually in the sections covering the different propellant systems However a few brief general comments will be made here

It was demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by way of 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings that a few percent of AP was essential in the ammonium nitrate propellants in order to effect satisfactory combustion of aluminum An 88 solids 15 Al ammonium nitrate formulation containing no AP was test fired in several 227-kg (5-1b) test motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors In each case large amounts of aluminum slag remained in the motors after firing Molten aluminum could be seen being ejected through the nozzle during the test firings Greatly improved combustion resulted from incorporating 5 AP in the formulation The incorporation of 10 AP resulted in virtually zero slag remaining in the motor Therefore 10 AP was selected as a standard for this Alternate Propellant Program The three photographs of BATES motor tests (Figs 3-1 to 3-3 containing 0 5 and 10 AP respectively in the formulations) show rather dramatically the effect of AP on the combustion The glowing streams in the 0 and 5 AP firings (greatly reduced in the 5 AP test however) are produced by molten aluminum

A second technique investigated as a combustion improvement techshynique was the incorporation of zirconium metal powder into the propellant The basis for this idea was due to the fact that zirconium powder has a much lower ignition temperature than that of aluminum powder and has a relatively high heat of combustion The idea was to take advantage of this lower ignition temperature of zirconium powder to facilitate the ignition and burning of the aluminum by igniting and burning and thereby supplying sufficient added heat to the system to more effectively ignite and burn the aluminum This technique however did not demonstrate any real improvement in the measured performance but rather a decrease and was therefore not investigated beyond the initial BATES motor test firings

3-12

Table 3-3 Propellant Exhaust Comsition

Propellant PBAN AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Solids 86 88 88 88 88 88 AP 6960 10 20 10 10 10 HMX - - - 15 17 175

Tel K 2327 1563 1678 1570 1575 1571

MoI Wt of Products 2756 2309 2360 2285 2275 2281

Speciesa wt

AlCl 00094 - - - -AIC10 00086 - - - shy

-A1C12 00098 - - -

AICI3 00053 - - - shy-AlHO2 00012 - - -

Cl 02961 - 00007 - -

CO 232928 189953 191619 256367 264700 267944 39486 61302 58679 46105 44899 42773CO2

Cr203(L) - 10020 02090 10020 06050 10020 Cu - 00038 00184 00044 00044 00044 CuC(L) - 14543 11840 14513 14475 14513 CUM - 00891 04188 00901 00940 00901

-Fe 00134 - - -

FeC12 05998 00621 00621 00596 00583 00583 H 00191 00001 00002 00001 00001 00001 H2 18804 29663 27301 32744 32941 33221

aCl 209284 30346 60149 30357 30346 30357 HO 00321 - 00002 - -

H20 101499 154534 157204 95971 91721 86539 85862 221739 203436 225998 228954 226707N2

NH3 - 00905 00003 00005 00005 00005 NO 00018 05780 - - shy

0 00005 shy02 00003 - - shy

A1203(C) 302097 283418 283418 283418 283418 283418

aConcentrations less than 1 x I0-5 moles100 g exhaust are omitted

L = liquid C = crystalline

3-13

ft

iI

Figure 3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

Imm

Figure 3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5$ AP in ANAPA1HTPB

go

Figure 3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

A third technique investigated was that of using a chromate-coated aluminum powder in place of the standard aluminum powder This techniquealso failed to produce increased combustion efficiency of the aluminum in the propellant

Specific burning rate subjects are discussed in the discussions of the different propellant systems however some general comments will be made here As can be seen in Table 3-2 the proper selection of a burning rate catalyst must be based on more than burning-rate considerations when a rigorous effort is made to maximize specific impulse As can be seen a significant difference is calculated for the theoretical Isp between incorporating the different burning rate modifiers at the same concentration Also the modifier used can have a strong effect on the physical properties of the propellant

4 Physical Properties

This effect of specific ingredients on the physical properties of an ammonium nitrate system arises from the fact that chemical reactions other than the normal curing reactions between the prepolymer and the curing agent enter into the overall curing reactions In most compositepropellant systems the physical properties are determined largely -in addition to binder type and solids loading by the degree of crosslinkingand completeness of reactions with available cure site6 In the ammonium nitrate system however it appears that free protons produced in the system react with the double bond in the prepolymer (HTPH) backbone causing crosslinks at these sites Ammonium dichromate appears to contribute in a greater way to this crosslinking at the double bonds than some of the other burning-rate modifiers investigated On the other hand the AD subtracts less from the calculated Isp The formulating and development of an AN system therefore is complicated by these considerations The physical property problems are greatly complicated Nonconventional techniques must be found and employed in the physical property considerations in order to develop satisfactory control of adequate physical properties

5 High-Energy Plasticizer Studies

One of the approaches investigated on the program was use of high-energy plasticizers td achieve higher delivered specific impulse propellants A review of available nitrate ester plasticizers indicated that TMETN (111-trimethylolethane trinitrate) was the most promising candidate This selection was made on the basis of overall considerations of compatibility performance cost and availability Theoretical performance calculations on some typical propellant formulations with 20 wt TMETN are shown in Table 3-4

Propellant development work on this effort was done by NOS (NavalOrdnance Station Indian Head Md) Two basic formulations were inshyvestigated one with no ammonium perchlorate and one with 5 wt ammonium perchlorate A polyester (R-18) binder was selected and initial development work was done at the 82 wt solids level with 1200 wt TMETN Small

3-17

Table 3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations

Formulation 1-A

Ammonium nitrate 360 Aluminum 180 R-18 60 HMX 100 TMETN 200 Ammonium perchlorate 100

1000

Density gcm3 17300 (lbin3 ) (00625)

Flame temperature 34314 K (OF) (5723)

Vacuum specific 27115 impulse N-skg (s) (2765) E = 716

Pc 483 Ncm2

(700 psi)

Weight percent 278 HC1 in exhaust

1-B

310 180 60 100 200 150

1000

17411 (00629)

3481 (5806)

27155 (2769)

417

1-C 1-D

410 410 180 180 60 60 50 -

200 200 100 150

1000 1000

17217 17244 (00622) (00623)

3410 3430 (5678) (5714)

26988 26880 (2752) (2741)

278 416

3-18

mixes were made to check ingredient compatibility and propellant laboratorysafety properties Results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-5 along with the formulations These tests indicated that the ingredients were compatible and safety properties were adequate The two formulations were then scaled up into larger batches and card gap samples were loaded and tested Both formulations were uncastable so that the card gapsamples had to be hand packed The card gap test results are shown in Table 3-5 and suggest both formulations meet the card gap requirementsfor Class 2 propellant (lt 70 cards) However these results may be biased to give lower card gap sensitivity because of voids in the samples

Four additional formulations were then evaluated at the reduced solids level of 74 wt to improve propellant castability The polyester(R-18) binder system was used and TMETN level was held constant at 20 wt The variations made with these four formulations were variations in the levels of HMX AP and AN All the formulations were eastable and card gap samples were prepared and tested on each The details of the formulations and card gap test results are summarized in Table 3-6 General conclusion from this work was that for this propellant systemwith 20 wt TMETN a maximum level of 5 to 10 wt HMX can be used and meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

Work with the polyester (R-18) binder system was terminated and shifted to the HTPB (R-45) binder system when the early experimentalwork indicated that program goals would probably not be achieved with the polyester (R-18) Initial tests by NOS showed the solubility of TMETN (also referred to as MTN) in R-45 at 210 C (700F) was less than 1 wt They then conducted cosolubility studies with other plasticizersComplete details of these studies are shown in Appendix A Summary conclusions from this effort are as follows

(1) R-18 and adiponitrile are not soluble in R-45M

(2) DOA is more effective as a coplasticizer than TP90B and PPG-1225

(3) Maximum theoretical performance gains possible by replaceshyment of DOA with TMETN within solubility limits are about 176 N-skg (18-s) impulse and 0028 gcm 3 (O001 lbin 3 ) density

A decision was made to terminate further work with TMETN at this point in the program Primary reason for the decision was that the small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justifythe potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradation

6 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrates

An evaluation of available ammonium nitrate (AN) types was made to provide a basis for selection of the AN in development of the propellant formulations Ammonium nitrate is the major oxidizer used in all

3-19

Table 3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations with TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids)

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder TMETN Aluminum HMX Ammonium perchlorate Ammonium nitrate

Initial card gap tests

0 Cards 35 Cards 50 Cards

70 Cards

Laboratory safety tests

Impact mm (3 consecutive positive values 5-kg weight)

Sliding friction kg (ib) 24 ms (8 fts)

Electrostatic discharge- J

(5000 V)

NOS SCC-74-69 NOS SCC-74-074

600 600 1200 1200 1800 1800 2000 1000 - 500

4400 4900

10000 10000

-pos

pos pos pos neg neg

150 -125 150 200

gt-435 (gt_960) 435 ( 960) A35 (gt_960)

gt435 (gt960)

2125 125 gt125 L125

3-20

Table 3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids)

Formulation No NOS Mod I NOS Mod II NOS 1C NOS ID

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder -600 600 600 600 TMETN 2000 2000 2000 2000 Aluminum 1800 1800 1800 1800 HMX 2000 2000 -500 Ammonium perchlorate - 500 1000 1500 Ammonium nitrate 3600 3100 4100 4100

10000 10000 IbO00 10000

No 8 Blasting Cap neg neg -

Test

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards -shy pos 40 Cards pos neg

(42 cards) 50 Cards pos pos neg 60 Cards neg 65 Cards pos 70 Cards pos neg neg 75 Cards pos -

80 Cards pos - -

85 Cards - Ipos and I neg - -

90 Cards 2 pos - -

100 Cards pos I pos and I neg - -

112 Cards pos - -

120 Cards pos neg - -

121 Cards 1 pos and 2 neg - -

123 Cards neg - - -

125 Cards neg 150 Cards neg

3-21

three of the basic alternate propellants ANAPAlHTPB ANHMXAlHTBP

and ANHMXAPAlHTPB

Some of the problems associated with making propellants with AN are

(1) Low true density of AN (1725 gcm3 ) which limits solids loading for processable propellants

(2) Large size and hollowness of unground as-received prills

(3) Hygroscopicity of AN and particle agglomeration

(4) Slow burning rates

(5) Low specific impulse

(6) Volumetric changes with crystal phase changes

The following three types of AN were selected for evaluation

(1) Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated

(2) U S Agri-Chemicals industrial with anti-caking agent

(3) Monsanto industrial E-2 phase stabilized

These three were selected because they are generally representative of what is currently available from industry Table 3-7 compares the as-received properties of the three AN types Table 3-8 compares some of the processing characteristics of the three AN types

The Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated has the advantage of having no additives that generally tend to reduce propellant specific impulse However this AN has a soft prill that breaks readily and is very hygroscopic Both the unground and ground materials agglomerate severely even in controlled environments These difficulties in controlling particle-size distribution with this type AN pose real problems in achieving and reproducing maximum specific impulse and burning rate in processable propellants Cost of this type AN is higher than the other two types because it is a specialty product

The U S Agri-Chemicals industrial AN has a 043 to 077 wt coating of anticaking agent on the prills The coating consists of 90 talc and 10 Petro-Ag It keeps the material free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture In addition it makes a harder prill which does not break readily Good control of particle-size distribution is possible with this type of AN Consequently processable propellants are achievable with reproducible burning rates and delivered specific impulse

3-22

Oc Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received PropertiesTable 3-7

Vendor

ltC7

Type

Appearance

Total nitrogen

Approx assay

Moisture (when manufactured)

to Additive

Screen size (US Sieve Series)

Loose bulk density gcm3

3)(lbft

Prill Density gcm3

Approx cost kg (lb)

aphase stabilized

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticakang Agent)

White prills

None

254 (115)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

industrial (Coated with Anticaking Agent)

White free-flowing spheres

(prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

025 wt min

043 to 077 wt $ coating bagent

00 wt max retained on No 6 50 wt $ max through No 6 and on a No 8 940 wt max through No 6 and on No 20 10 wt max through No 20

154

154 (7 0 )d

Monsanto Agricultural Products Co

inoustrial E-2

Pearly white free-flowing

spheres (prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

05 wt min

04 to 06 wt E-2 additive c

10 wt max retained on No 6 100 wt through No 14

09611 (60)

161

a157 (71

b90 tale and 10 petroleum agent eMgo according to US Patent 3030179

taxesdBulk costs - carload quantities typically 54431-kg (60-ton) minimum Does not include freight or

Table 3-8

Property

Handling characteristics to unground

Particle size after tumble drying unground

Grinding characteristics particle size after coarse grinding in Raymond hammer mill with 4000-rpm hammer speed 160-rpm feed speed 032-cm (18-in) screen

Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticaking Agent)

Soft prill breaks easily Very hygroscopic and agglom-

erates severely

104 to 1000 pm

480 pm (avg)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

Industrial (Coated with Anttcaking Agent)

Fairly hard prill does not break readily Remains free

flowing with reasonable pro-tection from moisture

840 to 3360 pm

2200 pm (avg)

140 um (avg)

Monsanto AgraculLural Products Co

Industrial E-2 (Phase-Stabilized)

Very hard and dense prill does not bread readily

Remains free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture

1410 to 3360 pm

2000 pm (avg)

2bO pm (avg)

The Monsanto industrial E-2 phase-stabilized AN has 04-to 06 wt E-2 additive This material is MgO which pbase stabilizes-the ammonium nitrate according to U S Patent 3030179 (assigned to Monsanto Company) Figure 3-4 shows the specific volume of Monsanto E-2 AN and of AN that has not been phase stabilized versus temperature The solid line is for the Monsanto E-2 AN and the dotted line is for the AN that has not been phase stabilized Note that the volumetric changes associated with Phase III have been eliminated in the phase-stabilizedMonsanto E-2 AN Comparing Monsanto E-2 AN with the other types inTable 3-7 and 3-8 the following conclusions can be made

(1) Monsanto E-2 AN has a higher prill density than U S Agri-Chemicals AN (161 gcm3 versus 154 gcm3 )

(2) Because Monsanto E-2 is a very hard anddense prill normal handling and tumble drying does not significantly break prills Particle-size distribution remains in the range of 1410 to 3360 pm with an average size of about 2000 m

(3) Coarse grinds of Monsanto E-2 AN have an average particle size of about 280 pm which is in the size range (200 to 400 pm) for better fit with the other solids

(4) The Monsanto E-2 AN remains free flowing in both the ungroundand ground states with reasonable protection from moisture

(5) Cost of the Monsanto E-2 AN in large bulk quantities is 157 1kg (71 [lb) which is comparable to other AN types which are not phase stabilized

ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant batches have been made with all three of the AN types discussed above In general results were as follows

(1) The propellant made with Monsanto E-2 AN had lower endshyof-mix viscosities and longer casting lives than the proshypellant made with the other two types of AN

(2) Burning rates with the Monsanto E-2 AN were either comparable or slightly faster

Based on these results Monsanto E-2 AN was selected as the preferred AN type for the following reasons

(1) It is easily processed with good particle-size control It remains free flowing in both the unground and ground states with reasonable protection from moisture The prill does not readily break with normal handling or tumble drying

(2) It has typically a 5 higher prill density This lowers propellant volumetric solids loading which improves castability

(3) This AN can be ground to more optimum size distributions for improved solids packing

3-25

065

063 063

1

- BOWDEN

MONSANTO E-2 -

I

PHASE ILr

E

uS 061 IIshy

0 -

CU 059

057

055

-100 -50

Figure 3-4

0 50 100

TEMPERATURE degC

Specific Volume of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature

150 200

3-26

(4) It does not have a talc anticaking coating which appears

to accelerate propellant viscosity buildup

(5) Phase stabilization minimizes volumetric changes with varying

temperature due to phase changes

(6) This AN gives comparable or slightly faster burning rates

(7) It has a comparable price to other AN types in large bulk

quantities

7 ANAPAlHTPB ( 3 Wt HC1 Exhaust)

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished

on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraint of lt 3 wt HCl in the propellant exhaust

This constraint is met by limiting the AP level in the formulation to

( 10 wt

a Burning Rate Studies Initial burning rate studies were

made to evaluate different ballistic modifier types and levels with

the basic 88 wt solids ANAPAlHTPB propellant The selection of

the ballistic modifiers was limited to those that were

(1) Commercially available

(2) Proved successful for use within rubber base propellants

(3) Non-migrating

(4) Reasonably priced

selectedAmmonium dichromate (NH4)2Cr207 at the 2 wt level was

as the primary ballistic modifier for the following reasons

(1) AN is the major oxidizer

(2) AD has been used successfully for years with AN propellants

Other ballistic modifiers were used in conjunction with the AD to enhance

burning rate and attempt to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms

(035 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) Table 3-9 shows the formulations evaluatedand the cured strand burning rates obtained

The propellant formulations were mixed as small (1000 to 1500 g)

batches using a 38-liter (1-gal) vertical Bramley mixer The propellant

was cast into RAM-225 released molds that formed individual propellant

strands and was then cured After cure the propellant strands were tested

in a conventional Crawford Bomb strand burner A subsequent study

discussed in the section on ANUNXAPAlHTPB propellant showed that

3-27

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Formulation wt Crawford Bomb Data

rb cms (ins)

Batch No

Total Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m)

Other Ballistic Modifier

Oxidizer Blend CoarseFine

At 345 Nem2

and 210C (500 psia and 700F)

At 690 Ncm2

and 210C (1000 psia and 700 F)

o

30

31 55

88 6o

59 57

10 15 2

2 2

Fe20Q

Fe203 Fe203

1

2 4

4555

442558 425575

0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0279 (0110)

0538 (0212)

0475 (0187)

0432 (0170)

32

33

49

34

60

59

57

59

2

2

2

2

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite Fe203

1

2

4

1 1

4555

442558

425575

442558

0462 (0182)

0564 (0222)

0472 (0186)

0493 (0194)

0627 (0247)

0759 (0299)

0671 (0264)

0737 (0290)estimated

50 57 2 Copper Chromite Fe203

2 2 425575 0511 (0201) 0699 (0275)

54 57 2 Copper Chromite FeF 3 (unground)

2 2 425575 0485 (0191) 0648 (0255)

35 6o 2 Milor Blue 1 4555 0399 (0157) 0625 (0246)

56 57 2 Milori Blue 4 425575 0371 (0146) 0528 (0208)

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

a Crawford Bomb Data

Formulation wt rb cms (ins)

At 3115 Ncm2 At 690 Ncm2

0 0and 21 C and 21 C

Batch Total Other Ballistic Oxidizer Blend (500 psia (1000 psia 0

No Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m) Modifier CoarseFine and 70 F) and 700 F)

W 36 88 60 10 15 2 Ferrocene 1 4555 0381 (0150) 0569 (0224)N)

42 60 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 1 4555 0429 (0169) 0594 (0234)

53 57 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 4 425575 0356 (0140) 0490 (0193)

41 60 2 Iron phthshyalocyanine 1$ 4555 0358 (0141) 0490 (0193)

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

the strand burning rates may have been biased to give faster rates by the RAM-225 release agent However the burning rate trends and ranking of the ballistic modifiers do not appear to be biased by the RAM-225

Figure 3-5 shows strand burning rates plotted at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) versus the second ballistic modifier level for the ballistic modifier systems evaluated General conclusions from the study were as follows

(1) The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) and 2 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) gave the fastest burn rate

(2) Increasing the combined level of burning rate modifiers to greater than 4wt of theformulatibn decreased the burn rate

Although the attritor-ground (I m) ferric fluoride (FeF 3) gave a faster burning rate than CU-0202 P at the 1 wt second ballistic modifier level FeF 3 was not selected because it would have contributed HF in the propellant exhaust A preliminary selection of the ballistic modifier system was made for subsequent work The system selected was 2 wt $ ground AD and 2 wt as-received CU-0202 P

Achievement of the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2

(035 ins at 1000 psia) had not been accomplished by simple manipulation of the ballistic modifier type and level Consequently propellant developshyment effort was continued toward this goal along the following approaches

(1) Finer particle size ballisticmodifiers

(2) Finer particle size AN

(3) Greater level of fine AN

(4) Finer particle size AP

(5) Use of potassium perchlorate

Two approaches were evaluated to reduce ballistic modifier particle sizes to sizes smaller than those achievable with a hammer mill They were dry ball milling and attritor grinding The dry ball milling approach was unsuccessful with AD and CU-0202 P because they packed into a hard cake Attritor grinding of AP and FeF 3 to particle sizes smaller than 1 m has been successfully demonstrated within the solid propellant industry This method uses an attritor mill to grind material suspended in Freon between zircoa beads Attritor grinds were successfully made with AD and CU-0202 P and the particle-size reductions accomplished are summarized in Table 3-10

3-30

1016 I1

STRAND BURN RATES POSSIBLY BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

040

EU

04 E

z 0762

FIRST BALLISTIC MODIFIER 200 wt GROUND AD

FeF3 GROUND TO I

030

K c

0 10

uIX FeF 3 (UNGROUND)

Z

0 58

IRONO PHTHALOCYANINE

MILORI BLUE

x FERROCENEFe 20 3

020 zS

ln

0254 I I 0 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SECOND BALLISTIC MODIFIER LEVEL wt

Figure 3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic

Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-31

Table 3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P

Screen Analysis Micromerograph Material 50 wt pt 50 wt pt

Particle Size pm Particle Size pm

AD

As received =575

Attritor ground (21 h) - 44

CU-0202 P

As received 21

Attritor ground (21 h) shy 17

Small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of the smaller ballistic modifier particle sizes on strand burning rates Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-11 General conclusions from this study are as follows

(1) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 1 wt FeF 3 fine ground AN and 9-gm AP reducing the FeF 3 particle size from a coarse as-received to attritor-ground 1 pm material increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2

(1000 psia) from 0594 to 0668 cms (0234 to 0263 ins) (-12)

(2) In an IDP-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P coarse ground AN and 63- AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm did not significantly change strand burning rate

(3) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (0208 to 0219 ins) ( 5)

(4) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (2208 to 0218 ins) (5)

3-32

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-l05 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized 40 IDP

plasticized

1200

-

1200

-

-

1200

-

1200

1200

-

1200

-

1200

-

Aluminum MD 105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground

72 pm Attritor ground

44 gm

200

-

200

-

200 -

200bull

200

-

200

-

-

200

Ferric fluoride As received Attritor ground 1 pm

100 -

-100

- -

- -

-

-

Copper chromite As received 21 pm

Attritor ground 17 pm

- 200

-

200

-

200

-

-

200

200

-

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine Ground Gulf

Oil Fine ground

Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

3150 -

2850

-

3150 -

2850

-

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 1000 9 [Lm

FEM ground 63 pm -

1000

-

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000 1000

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-33

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-105 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 690 Ncm 2 0429 0465 0422 0419 0424 0439 0437 (100 psia) (0169)(0183)(0166) (0165) (0167) (0173) (0172)

At 345 Ncm 2 0594 0668 0467 0475 0528 0556 0554 (500 psia) (0234)(0263)(0184) (0187) (0208) (0219) (0218)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 047 053 014 018 030 033 033

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

In summary reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burning rates for the selected ballistic modifier system

As discussed earlier particle-size control of the unground Gulf Oil AN was a problem because of breakage of the prills during drying and handling A partial approach to this problem was to screen the unground Gulf Oil AN into a selected size range after drying and handling Smallshyscale propellant batches (1000 to 1500 g) were made using Gulf Oil AN and strand burn rate tests were performed on these batches to evaluate

(1) The effect of screened +60 to -32 mesh (250 to 570 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(2) The effect of screened +32 to -16mesh (570 to 1190 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(3) The effect of varying the fraction of AN as fine ground on castability and burn rate

The fine ground AN was ground using a hammer mill with the following settings

9600 rpm hammer speed 80 rpm feed speed

0033-cm (0013-in) screen

3-34

Fisher sub-sieve average particle size for this material was typically 20 pm The fraction of AN as fine ground was limited to less than 55wt to keep propellant processable in the small scale batches (Larger batches typically have better castability) Table 3-12 and Fig 3-6 summarize test results General conclusions from these results were

(1) All batches had poor relative castability

(2) Using unscreened unground Gulf Oil AN (broad particle-size distribution with a significant portion of fines) and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 483 to 542 wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) from 0505 to 0577 cms (0199 to 0227 ins)

(3) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0462 cms (0199 to 0182 ins)

(4) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 300 to 483

wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (100 psia) from 0419 to Q462cms (0165 to 0182 ins)

(5) Changing the coarse fraction from screened +60 to -32 AN to screened +32 to -16 mesh AN reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0404 cms (0165 to 0159 in s)

Changing the type of ammonium nitrate type from Gulf Oil to Monsanto phase stabilized AN eliminated the problem of prill breakage but did not improve castability even with IDP plasticizer as shown by Batch SB-101 in Table 3-12 The slower burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponent with Batch SB-101 compared to Batch SB-64 is due to use of IDP as the plasticizer A small-scale propellant batch SB-102 was made with a coarse ground Monsanto AN to evaluate the effect of this material on castability and burn rate The coarse ground was made using a hammer mill with the following setting 4000 rpm hammer speed 160 rpm feed speed and 032-cm (18-in) screen

Screen analysis indicated this coarse ground AN had an average particle size of approximately 280 pm Propellant castability using this material was excellent but strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was reduced from 0485 to 0442 cms (0191 to 0174 ins) 9 The burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) was not achieved by varying AN type AN particle size or fraction of AN fine ground

The effect of replacing hammer mill ground AP by fluid energy mill ground AP on propellant burning rate was evaluated in a series of five small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) batches Three batches were made using DOA plasticizer and fine ground Gulf AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 55 pm Two batches were made using IDP plasticizer and coarse ground Monsanto AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm Results of this study are shown in Table 3-13 and Fig 3-7

3-35

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized40 IDP

plasticized

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 to 72 gm

Copper chromite as received

im21

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Screened (+60-32) Gulf Oil

Screened (+32 to -16 mesh) Gulf Oil

Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil

Fine ground Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground9 gm

Fraction of AN fine ground (wt )

Relative Castability

SB-64

AN-25

1200

-

200

200

1500

3050

-

-

2850

-

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-75

AN-63

1200

-

200

200

1500

2700

-

--

3200

-

1000

542

Poor

SB-48

AN-40

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

4130

--

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-48A

AN-40A

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

-

4130 -

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-61

AN-53

1200

200

200

1500

-

3050

-

2850

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-101 SB-102

AN-65 AN-65A

- -

1200 1200

200 200

200 200

1500 1500

- -

- -

- -3050 3050

- -

2850 -

2850

1000 1000

483 -

Poor Excellent

3-36

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-64 SB-75 SB-48 SB-48A SB-61 SB-101 SB-102

Formulation No AN-25 AN-63 AN-40 AN-40A AN-53 AN-65 AN-65A

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm 2 0366 0414 0277 0284 0338 0419 0351 (500 psia) (0144)(0163)(0109) (0112) (0133) (0165) (0138)

At 690 Ncm2 0505 0577 0419 0404 0462 0485 0442 (1000 psia) (0199)(0227)(0165) (0159) (0182) (0191) (0174)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 047 049 060() 050 045 022 032

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

These results indicated the following

(1) Using DOA plasticizer fine ground Gulf AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 55 gm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0508 to 0635 cms (0200 to 0250 ins)

(2) Using IDP plasticizer coarse ground Monsanto AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0442 to 0467 cms (0174 to 0184 ins)

(3) Use of the finer (55 to 63 pm) fluid energy ground AP did not increase pressure exponent

Maximum burning rate achieved using fluid energy ground AP was 0635 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0250 ins at 1000 psia) compared to the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

3-37

Table 3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-62 SB-64 SB-66 SB-102 SB-103

Formulation No AN-25 AN-25 AN-56 AN-65A- AN-65B

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 wt DOA plasticized 40 wt IDP plasticized

1200 -

1200 -

1200 -

-

1200 1200

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as

received 21 [m 200 200 200 200 200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 -1500

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil Coarse ground Monsanto

3050

-2850 -

3050

-2850

-

3050

-2850

-

3050 -

2850

3050 -

2850

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 9 1m Fluid energy ground 55 pm Fluid energy ground 63 pm

1000 --

1000 -

-

1000 -

1000 -

-

-

1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Ratesa

cms at 251C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)- 0368 (0145)

0366 (0144)

0457 (0180)

0351 (0138)

0422 (o166)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0508 (0200)

0505 (0199)

064 (025)

0442 (0174)

0467 (0184)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 049 049 048 032 014

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-38

0762 I I I 1 030 11nSTRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY -Z o BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

0E E

COARSE FRACTION HADBROAD SIZE DISTRIBUTION a Z o

WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTION OFFINES

oC 10I0 Ishy

lt 0508 020 w

zz Z 0-COARSE FRACTION WAS 04 n SCREENED TO OBTAIN

NARROW COARSE DISTRIBUTION (+60 -32

o Z

I-MESH) WITH NO FINES

-shy

0254 20

I 30

I 40

I 50

I 60

010 70

FRACTION QF FINE GROUND AN wt

Figure 3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (Gulf AN)

3-39

1270 050

E

U

o 0

I-

C

BURN RATE GOAL o

I-

D Co0

0762 FINE

DOA

GROUND AN AND

PLASTICIZER

030

0D 0o z

V) 0508-

COARSE GROUND AN AND IDP PLASTICIZER 020

0381 I I I I I 015 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) jm

Figure 3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size

ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-40

A small-scale propellant batch SB-65 was made to determine whether the burning rate could be increased significantly by replacing the ground AP by ground potassium perchlorate (KP) Strand burn rate tests were made on this batch and compared to the reference Batch SB-64 as shown in Table 3-14 Strand burning rate at690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was increased from 0505 to 0531 cms (0199 to 0209 ins) 5 but pressure exponent increased from 047 to 065 This approach was dropped because of the minimal increase in burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and the significant increase in pressure exponent

b Combustion Problems One of the problems in using ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer in solid propellants is the incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered specific impulse This problem was studied in the Phase 0 effort and partially resolved by modifying the formulations to include 10 wt AP Other approaches considered on this program to improve aluminum combustion and performance were

(1) Use of aluminum and zirconium mixtures Zirconium has

lower ignition temperature than aluminum

(2) Use of dichromate-coated aluminum powder

(3) Use of aluminummagnesium alloys

(4) Use of plasticizers containing more oxidizer to obtain a more favorable oxidizerfuel ratio

Some increases in propellant burning were also considered possible with several of these approaches Because of limited time and fundsonly the first two approaches were evaluated to any extent with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant Results of these studies are covered in the following discussion

A small-scale propellant batch SB-104 was made using the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum to evaluate the effect on strand burning rates Results of these strand burning rate tests are compared to strand burning rates of reference Batch SB-103 in Table 3-15 The replacement of the uncoated MD-05 aluminum by the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0467 to 0424 cms (0184 to 0167 ins) 9 No motors were loaded and tested to evaluate the effects of this dichromate-coated aluminum on delivered specific impulse

3-41

Table 3-14 Evaluation of Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-64 SB-65

Formulation No AN-25 AN-55

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 gim 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 [Lm 1000 -

Potassium perchlorate hammer mill ground 30 gm - 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0366 (0144) 0340 (013

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0505 (0199) 0531 (0209

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 049 065

Six small-scale propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of AlZr mixtures on propellant castability and strand burning rates Three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt Fe203 The other three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P Zirconium powder level was varied at 0 250 and 500 wt of propellant formulation (0 16 and 13 replacement of Al) Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-16 and Fig 3-8 General conclusions were as follows

3-42

Table 3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-103 SB-104

Formulation No AN-65B AN-65C

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 (uncoated) 1500 -

Aluminum H-5 (dichromate coated) - 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250C

(ins at 771F)

At 345 Ncm 2 (500 psia) 0422 (0166) 0366 (0144)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0467 (0184) 0424 (0167)

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 014 022

3-43

1016 1 1 1 1 040

-rl STRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY E BIASED BY RAM-225 (3 MOLD RELEASE

E

0762 030 0

CD 00 0 0 I---shy

100 CU-0202 P + 200 AD

z 0508 - 020 D

z z

- 100 Fe20 3 + 200 AD

0254 I I I -010 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ZIRCONIUM (REPLACING ALUMINUM) wt

Figure 3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium

ANAPA1HTPB Propellants

3-44

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Ingredients wt

iHTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1250 1000 1500 1250 1000

Zirconium powder --- 250 500 250 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 [m 200 200 200 200 200 200

Fe203 as received 100 100 100

Copper chromite as received --- - --- 100 100 100

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 gm 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)e

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0272 (0107)

0462 (0182)

0376 (0148)

0307 (0121)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0538 (0212)

0452 (0178)

0399 (0157)

0627 (0247)

0546 (0215)

0455 (0179)

3-45

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 390 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 052 058 058 044 054 057

apoor relative castability bUncastable

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

(1) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to make the propellant less castable on the 38-liter (1-gal) batch scale

(2) The 200 wt AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P ballistic modifier system gave faster burning rates than the 200 wt AD and 100 wt Fe203 ballistic modifier system

(3) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to reduce propellant strand burning rate and increase strand pressure exponent

Based on this study and the study of ballistic modifiers a formulation using 500 wt zirconium was selected for s6ale-up and evaluation in BATES motor firings Results of these additional tests are discussed in Section III-H-d and III-H-e

c Proc6ssing Studies Limited funds and time did not allow for any systematic study of processing variables to optimize processing conditions However processing methods and conditions were optimizedbased on experience Some of the specific approaches used for propellant mixing were

(1) Careful selections of order and manner of ingredient addition to disperse and wet solids

(2) Elevated temperatures prior to curative addition to wet and disperse solids and reduced temperatures after curative addition to minimize cure reactions

3-46

(3) Extended vacuum mix times prior to curative addition to

wet and disperse fine- solids

(4) Controlled moisture of ingredients and of the process

The effects of AN particle sizes and fraction of AN fine ground on propellant castability were discussed in conjunction with the burning rate studies

Antioxidants are commonly used with the R-45 HTPB binder to improve propellant pot life and aging stability The combination of UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-p-phenylene diamine) and DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone) appears to give synergistic effects and is very effective in extending pot life Protech 2002 (UTC proprietary metalshydeactivating antioxidant) and others of the Protech series have the additional advantage of being metal scavengers They tie up the transishytion metals that catalyze radical oxidations Four small-scale propellant batches were made initially to evaluate these pot-life extenders Table 3-17 summarizes results of this initial study The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH gave some improvement in propellant castability with no significant effect on propellant burning rate No improvement in propellant castability was observed with use of the Protech 2002 The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH was selected as the pot-life extender system to be used for additional evaluation

DOA was chosen initially as the plasticizer for use with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant It is one of the most commonly used plasticizers and its low cost is an advantage IDP has a lower viscosity and freezing point than DOA but is more costly than DOA Six smallshyscale propellant batches were made and tested to compare the two plasticizers DOA and IDP under the following three conditions

(1) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level without pot-life extenders

(2) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

(3) At the 50 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

Results of the study are summarized in Table 3-18 General conclusions from the study were

(1) The IDP consistently gave better castability than the DOA

(2) Use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH improved castability with both of the plasticizers DOA and IDP

(3) No major improvement in castability was observed by increasing the plasticizer in binder level from 40 to 50 wt

3-47

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1192 1177 1185

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl-hydroquinone) - 00 004 -

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshyphenylene diamine) -

Protech 2002 (UTC

proprietary antioxidant) -

004

-

004

015

-

015

Aluminum MD-105 1000 1000 1000 1000

Zirconium powder 500 500 500 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63ttxz 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm 1000 1000 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-48

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at

0770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 0323 0295 0282 0269 (500 psia) (0127) (0116) (0111) (0106)

At 690 Ncm 2 0475 0467 0483 0460 (1000 psia) (0187) (0184) (0190) (0181)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 057 066 078 078

aUncastable bpoor castability

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

The effect of plasticizer type on propellant burning rate was not conshyclusively determined from this study Two out of the three cases indicated that the IDP gave slower strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) To resolve this question two additional propellant batches SB-100 and SB-101 were made where the strand burn rate test results could not possibly be biased by the RAM-225 release agent The batches were formulated to have 40 wt plasticizer in binder and to use the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH Results of tests on these two batches are shown in Table 3-19 These results indicated the change from DOA to IDP plasticizer reduced the strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0544 to 0485 cms (0214 to 0191 ins) ( 11)

Based on results of these processing studies the following propellant selections were made for additional evaluation in scale-up batches and motor tests

(1) DOA plasticizer

(2) 40 wt plasticizer in binder level

(3) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH each at the 004 wt level

3-49

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

Formulation No AN-57a AN-58b AN-25 0 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 592 592 720 720 712 712

DTBH (25 dishytertiary butyl hydroquinone) 004 004 - - 004 004

UOP-36 (N-phenylshyN-cyclohexylshyP-phenylene diamine) 004 004 - - 004 004

DOA 600 - 480 - 480 -

IDP - 600 - 480- - 480

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 Am 200 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 [Lm 200 200 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate screened ungroundGulf Oil +60 -32 mesh 2700 2700 - - - -

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil - - 3050 3050 2700 2700

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 3200 3200 2850 2850 3200 3200

Ammonium perchloshyrate hammer mill ground 9 jim - - 1000 1000 1000 1000

3-50

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ammonium perabloshyrate fluid energy mill ground 55 pm

Total

Strand Burning Ratesd cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2 (500 to 1000 psia)

aGood castability

SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

AN-57a AN-58b AN-250 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

1000 1000 -

10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

0376 0371 0366 0478 0414 0353 (0148) (0146) (0144) (0188) (0163) (0139)

0572 0533 0505 0658 0577 0500 (0225) (0210) (0199) (0259) (0227) (0197)

059 053 047 046 049 048

bExcellent castability 0Poor castability dpossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-51

Table 3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-100

-AN-25a

SB-101

AN-65b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 712 712

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshy

P-phenylene diamine)

004

04

004

004

DOA 48o -

IDP - 480

Aluminum IAD-I05 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 72 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm

Total 1000

10000 1000

10000

Strand burning rates cms at 25degC (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

0406 (0160)

0544 (0214)

0419 (0165)

0485 (0191)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

041 022

apoor castability bFair castability

3-52

Results of these additional tests are discussed in sections on scale-up and ballistic evaluation

d Scale-up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Two propellant formulations were selected for evaluation in scale-up batches [946 liters 104 to 113 kg (25gal 230 to 250 lb)] and motor tests Formulation AN-25 was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum and 4 wt ballistic modifier Formulation AN-59 was identical except one-third of the aluminum (5 wt of the propellant formulation) was replaced by zirconium powder Details of the formulations are shownin Table 3-20 Both formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section e The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples from each batch

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rate

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-20 General conclusions from these tests were as follows

(1) The end-of-mix viscosities and pot lives on both batches were excellent There was no degradation of castability with zirconium as suggested by the small-scale batch studies

(2) Strand burning rates were slightly faster at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) for the formulation with zirconium The smallshyscale studies had suggested slower burning rates for formulashytions containing zirconium

(3) Both formulations had burning rateswhich were well below the burning rate goal 0478 and 0513 cms at 690 Ncm2

(0188 and 0202 ins at 1000 psia) versus goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(4) Card gap tests on both formulations were negative at 0 cards and therefore met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Density of the propellant containing zirconium was slightly higher than the propellant containing just aluminum as expected

3-53

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

Propellant Type Batch Number Formulation Number Batch Size kg (ib)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized)

UOP-36

DTBH

Ammonium dichromate grodnd 63 pm

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Aluminum powder

Zirconium powder

Ammonium nitrate Gulf Oil unground Gulf Oil fine ground

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 pm

Total

Brookfield apparent viscosities kP at 0C (OF)

Time after curative addition

07 h (end-of-mix) 13 h 34 h

Strand burning rates at 251C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) At 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

ANAPAlHTPB SB-73 AN-25

113 (250)

1192

004

004

200

200

1500

-

3050 2850

1000

10000

60 at 55 (130) 73 at 57 (135) 95 at 55 (130)

0257 (0101) 0373 (0147) 0462 (0182) 0478 (0188)

3-54

ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74 AN-59

104 (230)

1192

004

004

200

200

1000

500

3050 2850

1000

10000

41 at-57 (-135) 50 at-57 (-135)

0224 (0088) 0353 (0139) 0437 (0172) 0513 (0292)

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations (Continuation 1)

Propellant Type ANAPAlHTPB ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74Batch Number SB-73

Formulation Number AN-25 AN-59 Batch Size kg (ib) 113 (250) 104 (230)

Card Gap Tests 10 negative 10 negative at 0 cards at 0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) 16497 16630 gcm3 (lbin 3 ) (00596) (00601)

JANNAF Uniaxial properties Sm Ncm 2 (psi) 90 (130) 88 (127) era 47 48

Sb Ncm2

eb (psi) 90 (130)

47 88 (127)

48

(6) JANNAF uniaxial properties for both batches were comparable

Maximum stress Sm was in the range of 88 to 90 Ncm2

(127 to 130 psi) and strain at maximum stress em was in

the range of 47 to 48 The low strain values are adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

e Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlHTPB System (3 HCl in

Exhaust) The five candidate alternate propellants listed and defined

in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were all scaled up to processing of 113-kg (250-1b)

batches loaded into BATES motors and test fired The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions using nozzles manufactured

and cut to actual expansion ratios of 716 Both chamber pressure and thrust were measured The tests were conducted at ambient temperature

conditions with propellant charges conditioned to 250C (770F) The

measured sea level Isp swas corrected to a vacuum Isp by simply adding the

back-pressure correction The following equations define the pertinent ballistic parameters

PC _f tEWAT Pc Edttb

J t at 075 Pc init

3-55

-- t EWA T F = dt tF=ftat 075 PC initFtt

Ab gPc KN= - = -

At crp

-- f ta C g At PdtWp g PcKN rp

It Isp ms = shywip

fta itr Fdt

to

PaAeIsp vac ms =Isp MS + -

Wp expended

(ta + tb)2

Figure 3-9 shows the burning rate of the formulation number AN-25 the ANAPAlHTPB propellant system with 10 AP Table 3-21 is a tabulashytion of theBATES motor test data from the test firings of batch number SB-74 of formulation AN-25

f Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlZrHTPB BATES motors were also loaded and tested with the modified ANAPAlHTPB formulation

containing 5 Zr powder a 15-pm powder The burning rates determined in BATES motors are shown in Fig 3-10 and the ballistic data from the BATES motors tests are tabulated in Table 3-22

3-56

PRESSURE psic 4

102 8 103 2 4 6 102 4 6 1524 i 1 1 1 6

A BATES MOTOR DATA 1016 4

n 0278

E --U 0508 -

2

KN shy

(D 0254 - 1000 1o0 1

z 0203- 800- 88

z

0152 - 600 6

0102 - -400 4

0051 I 200 2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73

3-57

2540 2032

1524

102

-

2 4

PRESSURE

6 103

I

psa

2 4 6 104 10

BATES MOTOR DATA 6

1016 n 0277 4

0508 2

O

S0254-0229 0152 -

KN

1000 800600600

I0-866

z

a

6102 - 400 4

0051 I I I 1 200 1 2

69

Fig 3-10

138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74

3-58

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test data

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

W loaded kg (lb)

Wp expended kg (lb)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-sem2 (lb-s)

E-1453 E-1455

9-15-75 9-23-75

SB-732 SB-733

3376 3109 (1329) (1224)

3393 3119 (1336) (1228)

25225 2525 p(55611) (5567) 25028 2501

(55177) (5513)

9922 9904

3840 3855 (1512) (15178)

811 742

881 797

425 576 (616) (835)

493 634 (715) (919)

459 590 (666) (856)

38844 45878 (56339) (66541)

3-59

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 PropellantTable 3-21 (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s)

p (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia)

r at PC cms

(ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s

(Ib-s)

F (JF dttb)6 N (lb)

It (f F dt) (ta)

N-s (lbrs)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

In vac ins N-skg M

E-1455E-1453

4723240196 (68504)(58300)

61834790 (8968)(69147)

05180483 (0190) (02o4)

534445332

528544739

1432 1424 (4700) (4673)

948953

5174650665 (11633)(11390)

6973461910 (15677)(13918)

53745852257 (120826)(11748)

212844207165 (21704)(21125)

88828820

228132226534 (2310) (23263)

3-60

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids Aluminum Oxidizer

88 15 AP-1O AN-59 HMX 0

Run No E-1453 E-1455

Expansion ratio 688 700

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test date

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

Wp loaded kg (ib)

Wp expended kg (ib)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

-E-1454 E-1456

9-18-75 9-26-75

SB-741 SB-742

3287 3119 (1294) (1228)

3307 3142 (1302) (1237)

2561 2561 (5647) (5646)2534 2528

(5586) (5574)

9891 9872

3835 38298 (1510) (15078)

3-61

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-IO AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s)

fP dt (ta) N-scm (lb-s)

Pc (f P dttb)

Ncm2 (psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

E-1454 E-1456

769 740

824 784

465 552 (675) (800)

541 620 (785) (899)

540 614 1 (783) (890)

40311 4482C (58467) (6500

41806 46000 (60634) (66718)

5242 6057 (7603) (8785)

0498 0518 (0196) (0204)

478 531

4726 523

13940 14319 (45736) (46977)

928 9527

3-62

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb)N (lb)

it (fF dt) (ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s-)

Isp efficiency

lsi vac ms N-skg(s22055

Expansion ratio

E-1454 E-1456

50189 50576 (11283) (11370)

6526 6835 (1467) (15365)

52044 52044 (11700) (11770)

20319 20447 (2072) (2085)

8598 865

22016

(2249) (2245)

696 694

3-63

8 ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (gt3 Wt HCl in Exhaust)

The propellant development work accomplished on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to this point indicated that the burn rate goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with the constraint of lt3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was probably not achievable Development work was continued on this propellant with the HC1 constraint removed but held to a minimum This section discusses that propellant development effort

a Burning Rate Studies Four small-scale batches (1500 g) were made varying the FEM AP (fluid energy mill-ground ammonium perchlorate) level from 10 to 30 wt The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground AD and 2 wt CU-0202 P was used End-of-mix viscosities pot life and cured strand burning rates were measured on each batch Objective of this work was to determine what FEM AP level was needed

to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) The formulations and test results are shown in Table 3-23and Fig 3-11 These results lead to the following conclusions

(1) The strand burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) is achievable using 18 wt FEM AP A motor burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) may require a slightly higher FEM AP level

(2) End-of-mix viscosities werein the range of 88 to152 kP at 520C (125 0 F) for FEM AP levels ranging from 10 to 20 wt Casting lives for these batches were 2_35 h at

520C (125 0F)

(3) Using FEM AP and increasing the AP level from 10wt to 18-wt increases HCI in the exhaust from 29 to =50

Thermoballistic calculations indicated that reducing the ballistic modifier level to 2 wt by elimination of the AD increased theoretical Isp by 196 N-skg (2 s) Elimination of the AD was desirable from other considerations Studies had shown that it crosslinks the R-45 prepolymer (probably through the double bond) and degrades propellant castability and physical properties Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made varying the FEM AP level over the range of 15 to 25 wt level Only 2 wt as received CU-0202 P was used as ballistic modifier End-of-mix viscosities and-cured strand burning rates were measured

Results of this study are shown in Table 3-24 and Fig 3-11 General conclusions from this work were

(1) Approximately 20 wt FEM AP is required to meet the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosities were in the range of 18 to 19 kP at 520C (1250F)

3-64

1 1 0902286

0802032 - 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 200

AD + 200 CU-0202 P

KZ 1778 690 Ncm2 (1000 psa) -070 E 200CU-0202 P

0 -060 O 1524

lt I- 345 Ncm

2 (500 psa) 200 AD 200CU-0202 P

0501270

z z

040 D2 1016 co

z z

0762- 030n

345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 200 CU-0202 P 0200508 -

I I 0100254 I I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FEM AP LEVEL wt

Fig 3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

3-65

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder 40 DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground (72 im)

Copper chromite as received (21 1im)

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto unground

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto fine grind

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy ground (63 tim)

SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

3050 3050 3050 -3050

2850 2350 1850 850

1000 1500 2000 3000

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier) (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

Formulation No AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

Brookfield Viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) kPh after CA

End-of-mix -152067 112062 88038 2806 LU

Pot life 18417 26418 22414 shy25627 3228 27224 3237 4038 40834

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0424 (0167) 0536 (0211) 0739 (0291) 1461 (0575) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0528 (0208) 0693 (0273) 1067 (0420) 2136 (0841)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 - 038 051 052

CA = curative addition

Table 3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (2 Wt Ballistip Modifier)

Batch No Formulation No

Ingredientswt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate

FEM ground 63 Pm

Brookfield End-of-Mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F)

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-135 AN-69

1200

1500

200

3050

2550

1500

10000

19

0437 (0172)

0660 (0260)

058

SB-136 SB-137 AN-70 AN-71

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

3050 3050

1550 2050

2500 2000

10000 10006

18

0884 (0348) 0615 (0242)

0242 (0489) 0930 (0366)

051 060

3-68

Based on these results formulation AN-71 with 2 wt as received CUshy0202 P and 20 wt FEM AP was selected for additional evaluation with

a scale-up batch and motor tests

b Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation Formulation AN-71 was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch [946 liter (25 gal) 113 kg (250 lb)] and motor tests It was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum 20 wt FEM AP and 2 wt ballistic modifier Details of the formulation are shownin Table 3-25 Formulation AN-71 was successfully mixed in the 946-liter (25-gal) mixer and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section III-H-8-c and d Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests

were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are also summarized in Table 3-25 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The propellant end-of-mix viscosity was 28 kP at 530C (127degF) which is high but acceptable Pot life was about 2 hours

(2) The strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was 0922 cms (0363 ins) which met the goal of 089 cms at

690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(3) Strand pressure exponent was 061 Motor pressure exponents are typically lower than strand pressure exponents The generally high pressure exponent is associated with the low ballistic modifier level (2 wt CU-0202 P) and the

fine (FEM) AP

(4) Card gap tests were negative at 0 cards Therefore they met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) The propellant density and JANNAF uniaxial properties obtained were typical of properties obtainedwith the ANAPAlHTPB propellant Measured density was 16497 gcm3 at 250C (00596 lbin3 at 770 F) Sm was 89 Ncm2 (129 psi) with an em of 37 The low strain values were adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

3-69

Table 3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation

ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Type Batch Number SB-140 Formulation No AN-71

113 kg (250 lb)Batch Size

Formulation wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized) 1192 004UOP-36 004DTBH

Copper Chromite as received 21 Am 200 Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 Ammonium nitrate

Monsanto unground 3050 Monsanto fine ground 2050

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 2000

Total 10000

Brookfield Apparent Viscosities kP at 0C (OF) Time after curative addition

09 h (end-of-mix) 28 at 53 (127) 19 h 52 at 52 (125) 29 h 73 at 52 (125)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins) At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) 0445 (0175) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0612 (0241) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) 0785 (0309) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0922 (0363)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 061 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests Negative at

0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) gcm3 (lbin 3) 16497 (00596)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties Sm Ncm2 (psi) 89 (129) em 37

89 (129)Sb Ncm2 (psi)eb 37

3-70

c Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAIHTPB (gt3 HCI in Exhaust)

As has been discussed the effects on this candidate propellant system

resulting from increasing the AP content were studied A formulation

with 20 AP and burning rate modifier reduced to 2 met the burning The burningrate and Isp goal This formulation is identified as AN-71

rates and measured Isp are shown in Fig 3-12 and Table 3-26 respectively

d Summary One ANAPAlHTPB propellant formulation was

developed that conformed to the program constraints for lt3 wt HCl

in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards

classification This formulation AN-25 had a motor burning rate

-of only 053 cms at 690 Ncm2 (021 ins at 1000 psia) and a

= 716 of only 2285 N-skg (233 s) A maximumdelivered vacuum Ip E

strand burning rate of only 064 cms at 690 Ncm2 (025 ins at

1000 psia) (unbiased by RAM-225 release agent) was achieved within

the program constraints with a small-scale batch using fluid energy

Since the development work indicated thatmillground (55 [m) AP

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1300 psia)

was probably not achievable with the constraint of _3 wt HI in the

propellant exhaust development work was continued with this constraint

removed but held to a minimum Formulation AN-71 was developed to

This formulation used only 200 meet the program goals on that basis

wt copper chromite as ballistic modifier and 2000 wt fluid energy

It had a motor burning rate of 097 cms atmill ground (63 gim) AP 1000 psia) and a delivered vacuum I E = 716690 Ncm2 (038 ins at

of 2403 N-skg (245 s) Table 3-27 summarizes and compares te properties

of these two formulations versus the program goals

The following summarizes the status of the ANAPAlHTPB propellant

development

(1) The basic ANAPA1HTPB propellat ip the second most

promising candidate of the three basic propellants

to good(2) Demonstrated that a few of AP is essential

aluminum combustion

of AP is required to meet(3) Demonstrated that more than 10

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins

at 1000 psia)

(4) Formulation AN-71 with 20 wt AP met the program goals for

burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [097 cms (038 ins)

achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] and delivered

= 716 [2403 N-skg (245 s) achieved versusvacuum Is at E

goal of 21403 N-skg (245 s)] but did not meet the goal

for pressure exponent (048 achieved versus goal of K042)

It conformed to the constraint for a Class 2 propellant

but did not conform to the constraint for lt_3 wt HUl in

the propellant exhaust

3-71

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellent

Solids 88 Alumindm 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX ---

Run No E-1484

Test Date 6-10-76

BatchChg No SB-1401

Nozzle Dt init cm (in) 48636 (19148)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 46380 (1826)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3025 (6670)

Wp expended kg(ib) 3025 (6668)

Wt expended 9997

Web thickness cm (in) 4648 (1830)

tb s 698

ta s 730

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 313 (454)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 380 (551)

Pc final Ncm 2 (psia) 317 (460)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24506 (355435)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24952 (3619)

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 351 (509) (psia)

r at cCms (ins) 0665 (0262)

KN initial 2103

KN average 21987

C ms (fts) 14604 (47914)

C efficiency 972

3-72

-E-1491

6-25-76

SB-1402

48636 (19148)

46355 (1825)

3016 (6650)

3003 (6621)

9956

4630 (1823)

654

705

317 (460)

421 (610)

238 (345)

24525 (355710)

24948 (36184)

3750 (5439)

0709 (0279)

2103

-21998

14638 (48026)

975

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX --shy

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 6248797 (14o4786) 6281131 (1412055)

F (fF dttb) N (lb) 895249 (20126) 960415 (21591)

it (fF dt for ta) 6356996 (142911) 6382382(1434817)

N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 210117 (21426) 215588 (21576)

Isp efficiency 9226 9256

Isp vac ms (corr) 240214 (24495) 241008 (24576)

Expansion ratio 716 726

(5) Formulation AN-25 with 10 wt AP met the program goal for presshysure exponent (028 achieved versus goal of lt042) but did not

meet the goals for burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [053 cms (021 ins) achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] dr for delivered vacuum I eE = 716 [2285 N-skg (233 s) achieved versus goal of gt2403 N-skg (245 s)] It conformed to the constraints for a Class 2 propellant and gt3 wt hCl in the propellant exhaust

(6) Demonstrated good castability and a pot life greater than

34 hours for formulation AN-25

(7) Demonstrated acceptable castability for formulation AN-71

(8) Successfully loaded and test fired 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with both formulations

(9) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

9 ANHMXAIHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished in the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined pershyformance goals within the constraints specified One of the advantages of this basic propellant is that it contains no AP and consequently generates no HCl in the exhaust However typical formulations using

3-73

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104

1524 I 1 1 6

1016 -A BATES MOTOR DATA 4

0 5x 10 MOTOR DATA 0508 - 2

E U

n =048 KN

0254 1-- 000 10 o 0203 800-6L 8

Z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0124 - 400 4 D

0051 200 2

I 10-20025 I1 I I

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm 2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140

3-74

Table 3-27 ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Achieved Properties vs Goals

Achieved Value

SB-140SB-73 AN-71AN-25-Alternate Propellant

Goal (10 wt- AP) (20 wt AP)Property

BATES motor Burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

089 (035) 053 (021) 097 (038)acms (ins)

BATES motor lt042 028pressure exponent

-Delivered vacuum sn

E 716 N-skg (s) 2403 (2245) 2285 (233) 2403 (245)

lt3 30 631C1 in exhaust

Meets card gap yes Required yesrequirement for Class 2 (negative (negative

at 0 cards)at 0 cards)

a45-kg (10-1b) motor test data

7) about to 20 wt HMX have theoretical Isp values

(vacuum and E 15 196 N-skg (2 s) less than comparable ANHNXAP(10)AlHTPB

formulations

Reduction in program funds and scope limited development effort on

this basic propellant to only four exploratory mixes

Two 10-g hand mixes one uncured and one a Safety Tests cured were made of formulations with 20 wt Class

A HMX to initially -Impact

check material compatibility and propellant safety properties

tests (DSC-differential scanning calorimeter) were made on both mixes

The formulations and results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-28

For comparison purposes these same safety tests were made on propellant

samples of the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-B-1123) Table 3-29

compares the safety properties of the candidate ANHMXAlHTPB formulation

AN-52 with the safety properties of PBAN baseline formulation TP-H-1123

These tests indicated

3-75

Table 3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No

Formulation No

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45 Alrosperse Premix DOA (4o)

Aluminum Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm Copper chromite as received Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 pm HMX Type II Class A

(DOA coated) Ammonium nitrate ground Ammonium nitrate unground

(+60 -32 mesh screened fraction) IPDI

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight 0 fire 50 fire

Electrostatic Sensitivity J

Thermal Stability (DSC - 10OCmin heating rate)

SB-59 SB-60

AN-51 (uncured) AN-52

1108 1108

1500 1500 200 200 200 200 7

2020 2020 3410 3410

1500 1500 none shy 062 9938 10000

4318 (17 )a 4572 (18) 4826 (19 )a 508 (20)

gt128 gt128

No exotherm No exotherm over tempera- over temperashyture range 21 ture range 21 to 1490c (70 to 1490c (70

to 3000 F) to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

3-76

Table 3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAiHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-52)

Formulation TP-H-1123 (PBAN Baseline)

Batch No SB-77

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400

HTPB binder

Aluminum 1600

Ballistic modifiers 040

Ammonium perchlorate 6960

Ammonium nitrate

HMX Type II Class A

Impact sensitivity cm (in) for 18 kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4318 (18) 50 fire 4953 (195)

Electrostatic sensitivity J gt128

Thermal stability (DSC - 100 Cmin heating rate) No exotherm

over temperature range 21 to -1490c (70tto 3000F)

DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

AN-52

SB-60

1190

1500

400

4910

2000

4572 (18) 508 (20)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000F)

3-77

(1) Formulation AN-52 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123)

(2) DSC data suggested that thermal stability of the 20 wt HMX propellant and gross material compatibility over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 300 0F) were adequate

(3) Formulations with up to 20 wt HMX could be safely processed inthe JPL ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

b Burning Rate Studies Two small-scale batches (1000 g) were made varying the level of Class A HMX from 1500 to 2000 wt Strand burn rate tests were made on cured propellant from both batches The formulations and results of strand burn rate tests are shown in Table 3-30 Strand burning rates increased from 0414 to 0450 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0163 to 0177 ins at 1000 psia) with the 1500 to 2000 wt increase in Class A HMX while the strand pressure exponent remained constant at 042 Although the strand pressure exponent met the performance goal of lt042 the burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)were well below the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) These very slow burn rates suggest that the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant may not be a viable candidate for achieving program goals

c Hazard Classification Card gap samples were cast cured and tested from the two batches shownin Table 3-30 Results of the card gap tests indicated positive tests at 35 and 70 cards on both batches Therefore these formulations with 15 and 20 wt Class A HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant hazard classification one of the major constraints Propellant development work on the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant was terminated at this point

d Summary The following summarizes the status of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant development

(1) Demonstrated that 1500 and 2000 wt_ Class A HMX resulted in Class 7 propellants

(2) Achieved a strand burning rate of 0450 cms (0177 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and a strand pressure exponent of 042 with a formulation containing 2000 wt Class A HMX

(3) Demonstrated good castability of the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant

(4) Discontinued development of this basic propellant as a result of reduction in funds

3-78

Table 3-30 ANHM4XHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-82A (HMX)

ANH-1

SB-81

ANH-1

(HMX)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class A 1500 2000

Ammonium nitrate 5400 4900

Card gap tests

0 cards 35 cards 70 cards

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

1 positive 2 positive

0-310 (0122) 0414 (0163)

042

1 positive 2 positive

0340 (0134) 0450 (0177)

042

3-79

10 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work-accompshylished on the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraints specified The constraint of lt_3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was accomplished by limiting the AP level in the formulation to10 wt The constraint of a Class 2 propellant hazard classification was primarily accomplished by limiting the HMX Class (particle size) and level to meet the card gap requireshyments for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards)

a Safety Tests Safety tests were performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes containing 20 wt Class A HMX to check material compatishybility and safety properties The formulations and the test results are shown in Table 3-31 As in the case of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant these safety tests results were compared to similar safety test results on the PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123) Table 3-32 shows this comparison General conclusions were

(1) Formulation AN-50 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as TP-H-1123

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F) as determined by the DSC

(3) Formulations with-up to 20 wt HMX could besafely proshycessed in the JPL-ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

Safety tests were also performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes to check material capability and propellant safety properties when the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were incorporated into ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellants Selected level for both UOP-36 and DTBH was 004 wt Impact sensitivity electrostatic sensitivity and thermal stability (DSC) tests were made on samples from the mix with the pot-life extendshyers SB-127 and on samples from a control mix without the pot-life extenders SB-126 The formulations and test results were shown in Table 3-33 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The mix with the pot-life extenders had essentially the same impact sensitivity and electrostatic sensitivity as the control mix

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000 F) (DSC)

b Burning Rate Studies Six small-scale batches were made varying HMX particle size at two sizes Class A ( 149 lm) and Class E (15 to 20 gim) and HMX level at three levels 10 15 and 20 wt Objective of this study was to determine the effects of HMX particle

3-80

Table 3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No SB-57 (uncured)

Formulation No AN-49

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45

Alrosperse Premix 1108

DOA (40)

Aluminum 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm 200

Copper chromite as received 200

Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 Jm 1000

HMX Type II Class A (1 DOA coated) 2020

Ammonium nitrate ground 3910

IPDI none

9938

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for

18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 Fire 381 (15)a

50 Fire 43-18 (17 )a

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over (DSC at 10degCmin heating temperature range rate) 21 to 1490C

(70 to 3000 F)

SB-58

AN-50

1108

1500

200

200

1000

2020

3910

062

10000

5334 (21)

5715 (225)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples

3-81

Table 3-32 -Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate--ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-50)

Formulation TP-H-1123 AN-50

(PANbaseline)

Batch Number SB-77 SB-58

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400 ---

HTPB binder --- 1190

Aluminum 1600 1500

Ballistic modifiers 040 400

Ammonium perchlorate 6960 1000

Ammonium nitrate --- 3910

HMX Type II Class A --- 2000

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4572 (18) 5334 (21)

50 fire 4953 (195) 5715 (225)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability (DSC at 100Cmin heating No exotherm over No exotherm-over rate) temperature rangeru temperature range

21 to 1490C 21 to 149 0 Cshy(70 to 3000 F) (70 to 3000 F)

size and level on propellant hazard classification (card gap tests) strand burningrates and relative castability Tests were performed on- samples from each of these batches and the results are summarized in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 alongwith-the formulations Results of the card gap tests and relative castability are discussed in the hazards classification and processing sections respectively The strand burn- ing rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) were plotted versus HMX level in Fig 3-13 forthe two different HMXparticle sizes Class A and Class E Although the strand burning rates are biased to faster values by the

3-82

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests

Formulations for 10-g Hand Mixes

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate attritor ground (44 pm)

Copper chromite attritor

ground (17 Pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (63 gm)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-Nshycyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine)

DTBH (ditertiary butyl hydroquinone)

Safety Tests (Cured Propellant)

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight)

0 Fire

50 Fire

SB-126 SB-127

ANH-16A (Control) ANH-30

1200 1192

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1300 1300

100 1000

004

0-04

10000 10000

43 (17) 57 (19)

52 (205) 51 (20)

3-83

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests (Continuation 1)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over No exotherm over

(DSC at 10degCmin heating rate)

temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000F)

temperature range 21 to 149 0C (70 to 3000F)

RAM-225 release agent the relative ranking and trends are believed to be valid General conclusions from these rankings and trends are as follows

(1) The fine particle size HMX Class E (15-20 pm) gave signifishycantly faster burning rates than the coarse Class A (=149 pm) HMX

(2) The fine particle size HMX Class E gave lower pressure exponent than the coarse Class E HMX

(3) Strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) increased significantly with HMX level to about 15 wt and tended to level in the 15 to 20 wt range

From burning rate considerations the fine size Class E HMX was preferred because it gave faster burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponents Formulation ANH-5A [Batch SB-85A(HMX)] was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed in Sections III-H-10-f and III-H-10-g on Scale-up and Ballistic Evaluation

Cured propellant strands to this point in the program had been prepared by casting the uncured propellant into molds which formed individual strands and which had been coated with RAM-225 release agent Test data from the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings(from Batch SB-89 (first scale-up batch) revealed a large discrepancy between strand burn rates and the 45-kg (10-1b) motor burn rates An investigation of this discrepshyancy revealed that the RAM-225 was the cause Strands were prepared in5 the following three ways and tested for comparison

(1) Strands cured in the RAM-225 release molds and restricted

(2) Strands cut from a solid block of cured propellant and restricted

(3) Strands cut from a block of cured propellant then given light spray coat of RAM-225 dried in 710 C (1600F) oven then restricted

3-84

Table 3-34 ANH-MXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class A

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchlorate

ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates2

at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500to 1000 psia)

SB-88

ANH-8

1200

1500

200

200

1000

4900

1000

2 negative

1 negative

0480(0189)a

6 65 (0 2 62 )a0

048

SB-83 SB-84

ANH-3 NH-4

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1500 2000

4400 3900

1000 1000

-

1 positive 1 positive

2 positive 2 positive

0 622 (0 245 )a 05 41(02 13 )a

0826 (0 32 5)a 0 7 47 (02 94 )a

041 047

3-85

Table 3-34 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) (Continuation 1)

Shore A Hardness (3 s) 81 80 82

Relative Castability Good Good Good

aStrands were cast into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

Results of the tests are summarized in Table 3-36 and Fig 3-14 Very good agreement was obtained between the burn rate of strands cured in the RAM-225 release mold and strands cut from a cured block of propelshy

lant and then sprayed with RAM-225 However both these sets of burn

rates were erroneously fast compared to the 5 x 10 motor burn rates In contrast the strand burn rates obtained from cut strands which were

not treated with RAM-225 were much slower and agreed fairly well with motor data

A brief investigation was made to determine the composition of RAM-225 and whether it could be used as an improved ballistic modifier in the propellant formulation Chemical analysis of RAM-225 indicated

that it is a high molecular weight silicone oil in the solvents isopropashynol and heptane Two 38-liter (1-gal) batches of propellant were made with 015 wt dimethyl silicone (1000 cS) One batch had 400 wt mixed ballistic modifiers (ammonium dichromate and copper chromite) and

the other batch had 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier Both batches made with the 015 wt dimethyl silicone showed signs of viscosity buildup even before curative addition The batch with the 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier became too viscous to process to completion Tests results on the successfully completed batch with 015 wt dimethshyyl silicon [Batch SB-107 (HMX)] are shown in Table 3-37 Test results from Batch SB-108 (HMX) are also included in this table for comparative purposes General conclusions from these tests are as follows

(1) No significant changes in strand burning rates were observed due to addition of 015 wt dimethyl silicone

(2) The dimethyl silicone caused rapid propellant viscosity buildup even before curative addition and therefore the material appears impractical from propellant processing considerations

A series of six small-scale (1000 g) batches was made with the specific objectives of increasing propellant burn rate improving castashybility and improving burn rate reproducibility US Agri-Chemicals (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent was used for all six batches The following variables were evaluated

3-86

0

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations --HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchloshyrate ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

32 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770 F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-87 SB-85A SB-86

ANH-7 ANH-5A ANH-6

1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500

200 200 200

200 200 200

1000 1500 2000

4900 4400 3900

1000 1000 1000

2 neg -

1 neg

I neg 2 neg 1 pos

1 pos

(500 psia) 0 767 (0 302 )a 0 930 (0 366 )a 0912(0359)a

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0970(0382)a 1105 (0 43 5 )a 1 128 (0444 )a

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2

(500to 1000 psia) 033 024 031

3-87

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation

(Class E HMX) (Continuation 1)

89 88Shore A Hardness (3 s) 90

Relative Castability Fair Fair Marginal

aStrands were east into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

(1) Ammonium nitrate particle size Replacement of part or all of the large unground prills by a coarse-ground ammor nitrate

(2) Plasticizer type Replacement of DOA (dioctyl adipate) by IDP (isodecyl pelargonate)

Relative castability and strand burn rates were measured on each batch Results of this study are summarized in Tables 3-38 and 3-39 and Fig 3-15 General conclusions regarding propellant burn rates from the study were as follows

(1) Replacement of the very large unground ammonium nitrate prills by coarsely ground ammonium nitrate reduced propelshy

lant burning rate

(2) Replacement of DOA by IDP slightly reduced propellant burnshying rate (Q2)

(3) Strand pressure exponents were typically 036 or less well within the goal of lt042

(4) The US Agri-Chemical (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent handled without caking and had less tendshyency to size reduce during handling tand mixing These

factors should improve propellant burn rate reproducibility

The reduction in burn rate by replacement of unground prills with coarseshyly ground AN was unexpected and inconsistent with usual solid propellant experience Usually propellant burn rate increases with increasing fractions of ground oxidizer The mechanism for this unusual response has not been identified to date Formulation ANH-12 Batch SB-94 (HMX)

had the fastest burn rate 0836 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0329 ins at 1000 psia) consistent with acceptable castability Therefore it was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of replacing bamer mill ground AP with the finer fluid energy mill (FEM) ground AP on propellant properties Micromerograph analysis

3-88

270I 050-K STRAND BURN RATES BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

CLASSE HMXZ 1016 040 0 0ashy10

7CLASS AHMX 0762 - 030 Z

z nD 2

z - -

Ce 0508 -020 1 F-I) 0 5 10 15 20

HMX wt

Fig 3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-89

Table 3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)

Strand Burning Rate cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

Strands cured Strands cut 5 x 10 motor Strands cut in RAM-225 from cured firings from cured

Pressure released mold block of block of Ncm 2 (psia) propellant propellant

sprayed with RAMshy225 dried and tested

690 (1000) 0991 (0390) 0721 (0284) 0660 (0260) 0983 (0387)

517 (750) 0876 (0345) - 0662 (0245)

345 (500) 0765 (0301) 0599 (0236) 0549 (0216) 0785 (0309)

172 (250) 0572 (0225) - 0457 (0180)

Pressure 042 027 028 033 exponent

indicated that the fluid energy mill AP had a mass median diameter of 63 Am compared to 90 pm for typical hammer mill ground AP Batch SB-110 (HMX) was made using 1700 wt Class E HMX and 1000 wt of the FEM AP A reference batch SB-98 (HMX) was made using the hammer mill ground AP Strand burn rates and relative castability were detershy

mined on both of the batches Results are shown in Table 3-40 and Fig 3-16

(1) Replacement of the hammer mill ground (9 pm) AP by the FEM ground (63 pm) AP increased strandburn rate to 0950 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0374 ins at 1000 psia) This exceeds the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) Strand pressure exponent appeared to be reduced with use of the FEM ground AP

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of finer ballistic modifier particle size on propellant properties As discussed in the ANAPHTPB propellant development section an attritor mill was used to size reduce the ballistic modifiers ammonium dichroshymate and copper chromite Batch SB-117 (HMX) was made using 200 wt

3-90

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPBbinder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper Chromite

Dimethyl silicone

(1000 cS)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground US Steel with anti-caking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground US Steel with antishycaking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium perchlorate ground

SB-l08 (Reference)

AN-20

1200

1500

200

200

-

2000

-

2900

-

1000

1000

SB-107 SB-109

ANH-19 ANH-21

1185 1185

1500 1500

200 100

200 100

015 015

2000 2000

2900 3100

-

1000 1000

- -

1000 1000

3-91

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations -Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation (Continuation 1)

Relative Castability Excellent Uncastable Mix could not castability be completed

cured up in mix bowl

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0665 (0262) 0673 (0265) -

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0818 (0322) 0808 (0318) -

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 026

Card gap tests

35 cards

55 cards

69 cards 3 positive 3 positive

attritor ground (17 pm) copper chromite 1700 wt Class E HMX and FEM ground (63 pm) AP No ammonium dichromate was used in this batch as a part of the overall effort to achieve the burning rate goal 089

cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with improved performance (Isc)castability and physical properties Reference Batch SB-116 (AN ) was made using as received (21 pm) copper chromite Table 3-41 summarizes results of Brookfield end-of-mix visosity and strand burn rate tests on these two batches These results led to the following conclusions

(1) In an IDP plasticized formulation using only 200 wt CU-0202 P as ballistic modifier coarse ground AN and 63 Im FEM ground AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 m increased the strand burn rate at 690

Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0724 to 0737 cms (0285 to 0290 ins) t_2

(2) No significant change in strand pressure exponent was observed

(3) Castability was good for both batches

3-92

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103

25401 0 1 100

2032 - A CURED IN RAM-225 RELEASED STRAND MOLD - 8

B STRAND CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK

1524- BURNED WITHOUT TREATMENT 6

EU C STRANDS CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK SPRAYED WITH RAM-225 DRIED THEN BURNED ui

1016- 4 0C oD

z 7I- 0 z z z

CA _B

o 0o

z z0508 2

V)

BATCH No SB-89 (HMX)

FOMULATION ANH-9

0254 I I i I 10-1 69 103 138- 207 345 690

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (IIX) Formulation ANH-9

3-93

Table 3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size

Variation (Class E HMX - DOA Plasticizer)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with antishycaking coating)

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with

anticaking coating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative castability

Strand burning rates

at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(at 1000 psia)

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-90 SB-91 SB-93 SB-95

ANH-9 ANH-10 ANH-11 ANH-13

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

1500 1500 1500 1500

4400 2900 1760

- 1500 2640 4400

_

1000 1000 1000 1000

Uncastable Uncastable Marginally Castable castable

- 0678 0678 0516 (0 267 )a (0234)a (0 2 0 3 )a

0953 0859 0859 0665 -(0 3 7 5 )a (0 3 3 8 )a (0 299)a (0 2 6 2 )a

034 035 036

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were cut

from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased

by RAM-225 release agent

3-94

Table 3-39 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX - IDP Plasticizer)

Batch No SB-94 SB-96

Formulation No ANH-12 ANH-14

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticizer) 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium diohromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class E 1500 1500

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 2900

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 1500 4400

Ammonium perchlorate ground 1000 1000

Relative Castability Good castability

Excellent castability

Strand burning rates at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

-

0836 (0 329 )a

0518 (0 204 )a

0655 (0258) a

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were

cut from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased by RAM-225 release agent

3-95

1016 1 040

eE aQCNO

DOA PLASTICIZER

z CI-o 100

lt 0762 030 - I--

IDP PLASTICIZER

z Z

a a z z

--- 1-shy

0508 I-I I I20

cn

0 20 40 60 80 100 FRACTION OF COARSE GROUND AN wt

Fig 3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN

3-96

C

Table 3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations -AP Particle Size Variation (HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

Ammonium perchloriate hammer mill ground (Micromerograph 50 wt point 9 gim)

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (Mieromerograph 50 wt point 63 pm)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 45 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Relative Castability

3-97

SB-98 ANH-16 Reference

1200

1500

200

200 shy

1700

2700

1500

1000

0653 (0257)

0810 (0319)

030

Good

castability

SB-110 ANH-16

1200

1500

200

200

1700

2700

1500

-

1000

0843 (0332)

0950 (0374)

017

Good castability

slightly more viscous than SB-98 (HMX)

1270 1 050

K K

CN4 E 0

1016 040 0

o 0

100

BURN RATE GOAL

z z

= 0762 - 030 D

z z

05081 I I I I 020 40 50 60 70- 80 90 100t

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) gm

Fig 3-16i Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-98

Table 3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Particle Size Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Copper chromite

As received (21 pm)

Attritor ground (17 pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground

Total

Relative castability

Brookfield end-of-mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F) Strand burning rates at 250C

(770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

3-99

SB-116 (Reference) SB-117

ANH-24A ANH-24B

1200 1200

1500 1500

200

- 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1500 1500

1000 1000

10000 10000

Good Good

168 136

0610 (0240) 0627 (0247)

0724 (0285) 0737 (0290)

028 024

As was observed with the ANAPAIHTPB propellant reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burn rates

Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better optimize the ballistic modifier system for the basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB propelshylant Previous to this point in the program the mixed ballisticmodifishyer system of 200 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) with 200 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was used It was desirable to reduce the total ballistic modifier level to less than 400 wt and recover some shy

performance (II delivered) Elimination of AD was also desirable because of its tendency to crosslink the R-45 prepolymer with subsequent degradation of propellant castability and physical properties Batches SB-132 (HMX) and SB-138 (HMX) were made using only as-receivedCU-0202 P as the ballistic modifier at the 200 wt and 300 wt levels respecshytively The objective of testing these two batches was to determine whether the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm

2

(1000 psia) could be achieved by using only CU-0202 P at levels less than 400 wt Brookfield end-of-mix and strandburning rates were measured on both batches Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-42 and they indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate achieved with 300 wt as-received CU-0202 P was 6nly 0810 cms (0319 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(2) Based on extrapolation the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) does not appear achievshyable even at 400 wt as-received CU-0202 P

(3) A mixed ballistic modifier system of AD and CU-0202 P appears necessary to meet the burning rate goal

The third batch SB-134 (HMX) was made using the mixed ballistic modifier system of 100 wt hammer mill ground (72 m) AD and 200 wt as-received CU-0202 P Brookfield viscosity and strand burning rates were also measured on this batch and results are also shown in Table 3-42 They indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate of 0879 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0346 ins at 1000 psia) was achieved with Batch SB-134 (HMX) This almost meets the goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosity of 21 kP at 520C (125 0 F) indicated the propellant had acceptable castability

Limited time and budget did not allow for any additional optimization of the ballistic modifier system Therefore Formulation ANH-33 [Batch SB-134 (HMX)] was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed inthe sections on Scale-Up and Ballistic Evaluation

3-100

---

Table 3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 [m

Ammonium dichromate Hamshymer mill ground 72 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

HMX Class E

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground 63 pm

Brookfield End-of-mix Viscosity kP at 520C (1250F)

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-132

ANH-34

1200

1500

200

2900

1500

1700

1000

10000

33

(500 psia) 0594 (0234)

At 690 Ncm2 0757 (0298) (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

3-101

SB-138 SB-134

ANH-32 ANH-33

1200 1200

1500 1500

300 200

--- 100

2800 2800

1500 1500

1700 1700

1000 1000

10000 10000

Could not 21 measure

0630 (0248) 0615 (0242)

0810 (0319) 0879 (0346)

036 051

In summary the following approaches were investigated as methods

of achievins faster propellant burning rates and the goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncmd (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(1) HMX class (particle size)

(2) HMX level

(3) Dimethyl silicone as ballistic modifier

(4) Finer AN particle size

(5) Finer AP particle size

(6) Finer CU-0202 P particle size

(7) Ballistic modifier type and level

Of these only (1) (2) (5) and (7) proved to be effective approaches

to faster burning rates

c Hazards Classification The Naval Ordnance Station (NOS) did some of the initial propellant hazard classification testing to define the maximum level of HMX which could be used and remain a Class 2 propellant The basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB formulation selected for testing was an 88 wt total solids HTPB (R-45) formulation with 150

wt aluminum and 10 wt ammonium perchlorate Tests were planned on formulations with and without the ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P Table 3-43 summarizes results of these hazard tests These results indicated that 20 wt Class E HMX (15 Mm)in non-ballistic modified formulations gave propellants which marginally met card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards) AP particle size appeared to affect card gap test results No firm conclusions could be made regarding the ballistic modified formulations

This effort to define the maximum HMX level for a Class 2 ballisshytic modified propellant was continued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with AFRPL support Card gap tests made on the ballistic modified formulations reported in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 are summarized in Table 3-44 for convenience

General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Maximum level of Class A HMX is greater than 1000 wt and less than 1500 wt for a ballistic modified formulation

to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

(2) Maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1500 wt and less than 2000 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

3-102

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Ingredients wt

AN (unground) 430 430 4776 4279 390 3862

AP 45p m 100 - - -

AP 6 [m - - 995 995 - -

AP 4 [m - 100- - - - -

AP 2 4m - - - - 100 99

HMX 15 pm 200 200 1493 1990 200 198

Al H-12 150 150 1493 1493 150 1485

HTPB Binder 120 120 1243 1243 120 1287

AD - - - - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

CU-0202 P - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

Lab Safety Tests

Impact sensitivity mm 375 375 350 275 -

Friction kg (lb) gt444 gt444 gt444 gt444 -

(980) (980) (980) (980)

ESD J gt125 L125 125 gt125

Field Safety Tests

Card gap cards 55 to 65 to 0 60 to 35 to 55 to 60 70 - 65 50 60

Cap neg neg neg neg neg neg

3-103

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data (Continuation 1)

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Unconfirmed burning neg neg neg neg neg neg

Critical dia cm (in) gt64 gt64 gt64 gt64 lt89 lt89 (25) (25) (25) (25) (35) (35)

aX-ray of samples showed evidence of voids

Table 3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A with Class E)

Batch No HMX Card Gap

Wt Class Positive Negative Cards

SB-88 10 A - 2 0 - 1 -35

SB-83 15 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-84 20 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-87 10 E - 2 0 - 1 35

SB-85A 15 E - 32 - 2 35

SB-86 20 E 1 - 35 1 70

Class E HMX was selected because higher levels could be incorporated and remain a Class 2 propellant and because it gave the best ballistic properties

3-104

Two additional small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better define the maximum level of Class E HMX The Class E HMX was varied to the 1900 wt and 1700 wt levels for Batches SB-97 (HMX) and SB-98 (HMX) respectively Card gap sensitivity strand burning rates and relative castability were measured in both batches Table 3-45 shows the test results These tests indicated the maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1900 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

The 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches were made varying Class E HIX level to 1500 1700 and 1750 wt Card gap verification tests were made on these batches as shown later in Table 3-49 and test results are summarized in Table 3-46

Results of all the tests indicated the maximum level of Class E IHMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt for a ballistic

) modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

d Processing Studies The relative castability of propellant was observed on the small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) development batches and used in the selection of formulations for evaluation in the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches Brookfield end-of-mix and pot life tests were measured on all of the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches

The coarse Class A HMX (W149 gim) has a better particle size than the fine Class E HMX (15 - 20 pm) for solids packing Consequently the Class A HMX yielded propellants with better castability than the Class E HMX (Table 3-35) However Class E HMX was selected for all the scale-up batches because higher HMX levels could be used and ballistic properties were better (faster burn rates and lower pressure exponents) The level of MX was generally limited by Class 2 card gap constraints before castability became unacceptable

The lower viscosity plasticizer IDP yielded propellants with significantly better castability than the plasticizer DOA with only a slight loss in propellant burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) (Tables 3-38 and 3-39) Therefore IDP was the selected plasticizer

Replacement of the very coarse unground AN prills by coarselyground AN improved castability but reduced propellant burning rate Consequently the fraction of AN coarse ground was limited to 34 to maximize burn rate consistent with good castability (Tables 3-38 and 3-39

Replacement of the hammer mill ground (90 14m) AP by the fluid energy mill ground (63 jim) AP made the propellant more viscous but castability remained good (Table 3-40) This change significantly increased propellant burning rate and made the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) achievable (Fig 3-16) Therefore the fluid energy mill ground AP (63 pm) was selected for use when it became available

3-105

Table 3-45 ANHMXAPAHTPB-Formulation-z HMX Level (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating)

Ammonium nitratecoatse -ground (US Steel with anticaking c6ating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative Castability shy

-

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards

55 Cards

69 Cards

3-166

SB-97 SB98 ANH-15 ANH-16

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1900 1700

-2500 2700

1500 1500

1000 1000

Good Good

castability castability

0678 (0267) 0653 (0257)

0826 (0325) 0810 (0319)

028 030

1---positive

--- 1 positive

4 positive 2 negative

---

---

---

---

---

Table 3-46 JPL Hazard Test Data (Class E)

HMX Batch No

Wt Class

SB-89 (HMX) 15 E

SB-92 (HMX) 15 E

SB-106 (HMX) 175 E

SB-141 (H4X) 17 E

Positive

4

3

I

I

I

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

2

1

Card Gap

Negative Cards

6 0

10 35

2 0

5

--- 10

--- 15

--- 20

--- 27

3 30

5 35

--- 69

2 70

--- 35

--- 60

--- 61

--- 62

3 63

1 65

10 69

3-107

Replacement of the as-received CU-0202 P (21 pm) by attritor ground CU-0202 P (17 pm) did not significantly affect propellant castashybility Since this change increased burning rate by only 2 the asshyreceived (21 pm) CU-0202 P was selected Increasing the Cu-0202 P level from 200 to 300 wt significantly increased propellant viscosity making it less castable (Table 3-42)

Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were shown to signifishycantly improve castability and pot life with the ANAPAlHTPB propellant After checking to determine these materials were compatible and safety properties were adequate these pot-life extenders were incorporated into the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant

e Combustion Problems The problem of incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered speciflc impulse was addressed for the basic ANHMXAPAlHTBP propellant early in the program Two approaches evaluated to improve metal combustion I Land delivered specific impulse were

(1) Use of aluminummagnesium (AlMg) alloys

(2) Replacement of aluminum by magnesium

This work (by NOS) was done concurrently Mith the development -CV of the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant using conventional aluminum For convenience and clarity all of the NOS propellant development work done with the R-45 HTPB binder is reported and discussed in this section

Table 4-47 summarizes results of motor tests on ANHMXAPA1HTPB propellants with no ballistic modifiers Propellant formulation variations made were

(1) Total solids loading (87 to 88 wt )

(2) AP particle size (20 and 200 [m)

(3) HMX (Class E) level (20 and 30 wt )

(4) Metal level (15 to 20 wt ) shy

(5) Metal type (Al -and AlMg alloy)

The motors tested were either 4536-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors or 1814-kg (40-1b) charge (FPC) motors at sea level conditions Corrections to vacuum conditions with E = 685 were made as shown in Table 4-47 General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Motor burning rates at 483 Ncm2 (700 psia) were all in the range of 0356 to 0457 cms (014 to 018 ins) Ballistic modifiers are required to meet burning rate goal of 089 Ncm2 (035 ins) with a pressure exponent of

042

3-108

Table 3-47 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation

Specific Impulse

Propellant Data N-skg (s)

Burning rate at 483 Ncm

2

AP Vacuumd (700 psi)Motor Percent Particle Percent Percent

Typeb of AP Size m of HMX of Metal Type of Metal Delivered c = 685 cms (ins)

TPC 10 200 20 20 Aluminum 19476 (1986) 0356 (014)

20 19 AlMg (9010) 19760 (2015) 21633 (2206) 0381 (015)TPCa 200

TPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 21114 (2153) 22271 (2271) 0381 (015)

TPC 200 20 15 AlMg (9010) 20359 (2076) 20908 (2312) 0356 (014)

0 TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20398 (2080) 22467 (2291) 0356 (014)

TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23134 (2358) 0356 (014)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 21045 (2146) 23222 (2368) 0457 (018)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23242 (2370) 0457 (018)

FPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 19192 (1957) 21898 (2233) 0445 (0175)

00 wt total solids loaded propellant the remainder are 88 wt a87 bTPC are 4536-kg (10-1b) charge motor grains

CFPC are 1814-kg (40-1b) charge motor grains dAll motor tests were made at sea level Correction to vacuum conditi6ns was made as follows

fFdt me + Pa Aeta Vac Isp ms =

CF Creq

Correction to desired expansion ratio (c req) was done by multiplying vac Isp ms by C

CF C act

(2) The maximum vac Isp ms e = 685 obtained for this series of tests were 23242 N-skg (2370 s) This was obtained using 15 wt conventional Al 20 wt Class E HMX and 10 wt 20 jim AP The performance goal was vac Isp ms

E = 71 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(3) Reducing the AP particle size from 200 to 20 gm significantly improved vac Isp ms pound1177 N-skg (C12s)] and increased

burning rate

(4) Increasing the Class E HMX level from 20 to 30 wt signishyficantly increased vac Is ms 686 N-skg (-7 s) However propellant with 30 wt C ass E HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Increasing the metal level from 15 wt to 19 or 20 wt significantly reduced vac inpMs

(6) Replacement of the conventional aluminum by the AlMg alloy

(9010) appeared to give a small performance gain 392 N-skg (14 s) However the data was too limited to draw

firm conclusions

Propellant development effort was continued in an effort to achieve the performance goals The ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P were selected based on work done by JPL In addition finer AP particle sizes were selected based on the ability of this approach to achieve both improved performance and faster burning rates A Class E HMX level of 20 wt O was selected as the maximum to meet card gap requirements for Class 2 propellants based on card gap tests available at that time Table 3-48 summarizes motor test and theoretical performance results on the three ballisttc modified propellant formulations evaluated Formushylation 2A used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system 10 wt 55 Jim AP and 15 wt conventional aluminum Formulation 2Bused 1 wt AD as ballistic modifier 10 wt 10 gm AP and 15 wt AlMg alloy (9010) Formulation 2C used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system no AP and 15 wt magnesium The motor test results shown are all from 45-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors Since several formulation variables were varied between the three formulations it is not possible to isolate just the effect of metal type on propellant performance However the following general conclusions can be made from this work

(1) Formulation 2A which used conventional aluminum was the most promising candidate The vac Isp ms E = 684of 24144 N-skg (2462 s) met the goal of vac Isp Ms E = 71 -2403 N-sks (245 s) Burning rate achieved was 076 cms at 483 Ncm (030 ins at 700 psia) compared to the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with a pressure exponent _04

(2) Formulation 2B which used the AlMg alloy (9010) had a theiretical Isp (1000147) nearly the same as formulashy

tion 2A but Vac Isp msC = 684 was only 23252 N-skg(2371 s) In addition the burning rate was only 053

3-10

---

---

Table 3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured

Propellant No

Ingredients wt

AN

AP

HMX (15 pm)

Al

AlMg alloy (9010)

Mg

AD

CU-0202 P

R-45M

DOA

Theoretical Density gcm 3

(lbin3 )

Theoretical I

(Iooo147 )a Lcm 2 (s)

Measured Isp N-skg (s) at e = 55

2A

410

100 (55 fim)

200

150

10

10

80

40

17051

(00616)

24978

(2547)

22810 (2326)

Measured Vac Is N-skg (s) 24144 corr to E = 68 (2462)

Burn rate at 483 Ncm3

(700 psia) cms 076 (ins) (030)

2B 2C

420 510

100 (10 pm) --shy

200 200

150 --shy

--- 150

10 10

--- 10

100 80

20 40

16829 16027

(00608) (00579)

24958 23997 (2545) (2447)

21310 20113 (2173) (2051)

23252 22673 (2371) (2312)

053 041 (021) (016)

aStandard Conditions Chamber pressure of 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and expanded to 1 atm (147 psia)

3-111

cms at 483 Ncm2 (021 ins at 700 psia) for this formulation This data suggests that there was no performance advantage in using the AlMg alloy compared to conventional aluminum

(3) Formulation 2C which used magnesium as the metal had theoshyretical density and theoretical Isp (1000147) values significantly lower than formulation 2A The measured Isp and burning rates confirmed that this was-the least attractive of the three formulations

This work was ended at this stage of the program Good Isp efficiencies were being achieved with conventional aluminum using 10 wt fine particlesize AP and the selected ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P

f Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Four formulashytions were selected for scale-up evaluation and motor tests throughout the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant development effort Table 3-49 shows these four formulations Major changes in the formulations which were made as a result of the development effort on the small scale were

(1) dhange from DOAt lower viscbsity lasti6izdr IDP to improveshycastability

(2) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH to improve castability and pot life

(3) Reductions of the total ballistic modifier level from 400 wt to 300 wt to improve performance

(4) Selection of 17 wt ClassE HMX to achieve maximum performance and burning rate within the constraint of a Class 2 propellant

(5) Changes in the AN type to the higher density harder prill Monsanto AN to improve castability and burn rate control

(6) Change from hammer mill ground 8-9 gm AP to the finer fluid energy mill ground 63 Itm AP to achieve faster burning rates

All four formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into 5 x 10 motors BATES motors and small-scale samples The motors were successfully tested and results are summarized and discussed in Subsection g Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

3-112

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No SB-89 SB-92 SB-106 SB-141

Formulation No ANH-9 ANH-12 ANH-18 ANH-33

Batch size kg (ib) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Ingredients wt

R-45 polymer 6470 6582 6528 6397

DOA plasticizer 4613

IDP plasticizer --- 4647 4609 4615

)OA plasticizer (HMX coating) 0187 0153 0191 0185

Lirosperse 11 P 0113 0113 0113 0113

UOP-36 0040

DTBH --- --- --- 0040

IPDI 0617 0559 0559 0610

Ammonium dichromate (ground 7 Mm) 200 200 200 100

Copper chromite (as received 21 pm) 200 200 200 200

Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500

--- --- ---

---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil U S Steel Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

U S Steel Monsanto ---

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8-9 Am fluid energy mill ground 63 Am

Totals

Brookfield apparent viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) (Viscosity kPtime after curative addition)

End-of-mix

(Continuation 1)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

1500

4400

1000

10000

2208 2018 2128

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

1500

2900

1500

1000

10000

1609 2819 2929 4139 4149

SB-106 SB-141

ANH-18 ANH-33

104 (230) 113 (250)

1750 1700

2900 2800

1250 1500

1000 --shy1000

10000 10000

1008 708 1418 1318 2228 1527 2438 2137

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Nam 2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm (750 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

20 cards 27 cards 30 cards 35 cards 60 cards 61 cards 62 cards 63 cards

65 cards

(Continuation 2)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

0599 (0236)

0721 (0284)

027

6 negative 4 positive

10 negative

---

---

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

0503 (0198) 0617 (0243) 0691 (0272) 0775 (0305)

031

2 negative 3 positive 1 positive 1 positive 3 negative 5 negative

SB-106

ANH-18

104 (230)

0566 (0223) 0683 (0269) 0767 Co302) 0818 (0322)

027

SB-141

AHN-33

113 (250)

0544 (0214) 0622 (0245) 0719 (0283) 0805 (0317)

037

1 positive 1 positive 2 positive 3 negative

1 positive 1 negative

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type (Continuation 3)

SB-89 SB-92 SB-I06 SB-141Batch No

Formulation No ANH9 ANH-12 ANH-18 AHN-33

Batch size kg (lb) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Card Gap Tests (Contd)

69 cards --- --- --- 10 negative

70cards --- --- 2 negative 6 positive

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770 F) gcm3 (lbin3 ) 16746 (00605) 16359 (00591) 16691 (00603) 16663 (00602)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties

Sm 1cm 2 (psi) --- 49 (71) --- 64

em --- 19 --- 68

44 (64)--- 49 (71) ---Sb Ncm 2 (psi)

68eb --- 19 ---

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-49 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) End-of-mix viscosities and pot life improved as changes were made to IDP plasticizer use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH and Monsanto AN End-of-mix viscosity for batch SB-141 (HMX) was 7 kP at 520C (125 0 F) and pot life was greater than 37 h

(2) Faster burning rates were achieved as the HNX level was increased as the Gulf Oil AN was replaced by US Steel AN and then by Monsanto AN and as the hammer mill ground AP was replaced by the finer fluid energy mill ground AP

(3) Maximum strand burning rate achieved at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) was 081 cms (032 ins) with batch SB-106 (HMX)

(4) Strand pressure exponents on all four formulations were in the range of 027 to 037 Motor pressure exponents were lower than strand pressure exponents These low-pressure exponents are advantageous and meet the goal of lt042

(5) Card gap tests verified that the maximum level-of Class E HMX which meets the card gap requirements for a Class 2 propellant is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt

(6) Measured densities were in the range of 16359 to 16746 gcm3 (00591 to 00605 lbin3) for the four formulations

(7) The JANNAF uniaxial properties were oor with maximum stress values in the range of 44 to 49 Ncm (64 to 71 psi) and strain at maximum stress values in the range of 19 to 68

g Ballistic Evaluation ANHMXAPAIHTPB Systems The candidate alternate propellant containing HMX was evaluated in BATES motor firings at three levels of HMX 150 170 and 175 The 150 HMX formulation yielded the highest measured Isp Theoretical calculations had shown 170 to 175 to be optimum for maximum Isp Data from the BATES motor tests suggests that the actual optimum HMX level is somewhere between 15 and 16 This level of HMX in the propellant has been demonstrated to be within the Class 2 requirement The ballistic test data for the three HMX systems follows

(1) Formulation ANH-12 (150 HMX) Figure 3-17 shows the burning rate KN and pressure exponent for this propellant The BATES motor test data is summarized in Table 3-50

(2) Formulation ANH-39 (170 HMX) The ballistic evaluation test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-18 and Table 3-51

3-117

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104 61524 1 1 1

41016-

-2 2lt E0508-

0 KN -IA BATES MOTOR DATA KN

100 1 -1 0264 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 1000 10

0 0203_ 800 -8 0152 n 0310152 600 6

D 0102 - 400 -4

0051 - 200 - 2

I I I I 100025 1 -2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895 2

PRESSURE Ncm

Figure 3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92

3-n18

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No E-1466 E-1467

Test Date Nov 14 1975 Nov 26 1975

BatchChange No SB-921 SB-922

Nozzle Bt initial 4699 3764 cm (in) (1850) (1482)

Nozzle Dt final 4374 3571 cm (in) (1722) (1406)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 2981 2979 (6572) (6567)

Wp expended kg (ib) 29395 2940

(64806) (6482)

wt expended 986 987

Web thickness cm (in) 45789 4610 (18207) (1815)

tb (burn time) s 735 586

ta (action time) s 764 624

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 310 531 (450) (770)

PC max Ncm2 (psia) 386 731 (560) (1060)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 376 702 (545) (1018)

AP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26245 41056 (38066) (59547)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26779 42285 (38840) (61329)

3-119

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

Pa (3P dttb) Ncm2

(psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

It (1F dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion Ratio

E-1466

Nov 14 1975

SB-921

3511 (5179)

0630 (0248)

2253

2411

14507 (47594)

962

6193679 (1392395)

842675 (189441)

6198003 (1393367)

207921 (21202)

9249

237546 (24223)

70

E-1467

Nov 26 1975

SB-922

7006 (10162)

0787 (0310)

3511

3689

14983 k49156)

1006

6349309 (1427382)

1083497 (24358)

6559790 (147470)

220218 (22456)

916

235526 (24017)

70

3-120

PRESSURE psia

10 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 104 1524 I 6

1016 4

0508 0- 2

u KN A BATES MOTOR TESTS N

0254 - 1000 10lt 2 0 5x 10 MOTOR TESTS 8 - 1

0203800g- 8

Z 0152 n 037 600 6 z z

0102 400 4

0051 -- 200 2

I I1 -2

0025 69 138 345 690 1379 t 3447 6895

-PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 AHHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-141

3-121

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 PropellantTable 3-51

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

E-1490E-1489Run No

62376 62476Test Date

SB-1412 SB-1411BatchChange No

352684572Nozzle Dt initial cm (in) (1800) (13885)

3444Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 4531

(1784) (1356)

30133017W loaded kg (ib) (6651) (6643)

29332938Wp expended kg (lb) (6477) (6466)

97339738 wt expended

Web thickness cm (in) 4633 4643 (1824) (1828)

570747tb (burn time) s

638 ta (action time) S

794

Pc initialNem2 (psia) 345 683 (500) (990)

362 Pc maximum Ncm2 (psia) 752 (525) (1090)

Pc final Ncm2 N(psia) 324 649 (470) (942)

41665fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 25961 (37654) (6043)

ft dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26554 42802 (6208)(38514)

Pc ( P dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 347 731 (524) (1060)

3-122

Table 3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

r at P0 cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

F dt (tb) Ns (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

it cfF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion ratio (E)

De cm (in)

2Ae cm (in2 )

3-123

E-1489 E-1490

62376 62476

SB-1412 SB-1411

0620 0815 (0244) (0321)

2330 3989

2395 4077

143Q7 13540 (46940) (44421)

945 895

5979680 6258348 (1344286) (1406933)

8007 10978 (1800) (2468)

60958 64441 (13704) (14487) 202056 21388

(20604) (2181)

887 872

23183 22810 (2364) (2326)

716 716

12233 9426 (4816) (3711)

117522 69781 (18216) (10816)

(3) Formulation ANH-18 (175 HMX) The ballistic evaluation

test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-19 and Table 3-52

h Summary Two ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant formulations were developed that conformed to the program constraints for 3 wt HCl in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards classification These two formulations are ANH-12 (15 wt Class E HMX) and ANH-33 (17 wt Class E HMX) Table 3-53 summarizes and compares the properties of these two formulations versus the program goals Both formulations met the goals for pressure exponent and hazard classification but not the goal for burning rateor delivered vacuum I

The following summarizes the status of the ANH4XAPAlHTPB propellant development

(1) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic propellants

(2) Demonstrated the propellant is Class 2 with levels of Class E HMX up to 17 wt

(3) Demonstrated good castability and pot life greater than 37 h for formulations with 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(4) Successfully loaded and test fired 45-kg (10-1b) motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with formulations containing 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(5) Demonstrated a delivered vacuum Isp (E = 716) of 23752 N-skg (2422 s) with formulation ANH-12

(6) Demonstrated a BATES motor burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) and a pressure exponent of 037 with formulation ANH-33

(7) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

(8) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 150 and 170

11 Baseline PBAN Propellant Modification

The current baseline propellant system in the Shuttle SRM is

an 86 solids 16 aluminum PBAN propellant developed by the Thiokol Corporation This baseline propellant has a burning rate of approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) pressure In order to simplify the task of matching the burning rates of the alternate propellant and the PBAN baseline-propellant at 400Ncm2 (580 psia)

-3-124

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 103

1524 I 6

1016 - 4

A BATES MOTOR DATA 0508 - 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 20508 n =031

E -_ Ko

U IN

u- 0254 - -1000 10shy0203 -800 8

oD 0 z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0102 - 400 4

0051 200 2

0025 I I I0 - 2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Figure 3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-106

3-125

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HNX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

Nozzle Dt initial 4592 3543 cm (in) (1808) (1395)

Nozzle Dt final 4463 3388 cm (in) (1757) (1334)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3022 3023 (6662) (6664)

Wp expended kg (ib) 2956 2957

(6516) (6519)

Wt expended 9781 9782

Web thickness cm (in) 4615 4615 (1817) (1817)

tb (burn time) s 788 - 628

ta (action time) s 818 665

PC initial Ncm2 (psia) 248 483 (360) (700)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 352 717 (510) (1040)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 296 622 (430) (902)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 262146 42991 (380212) (62353)

fp dt (ta) N-scm 2 (lb-s) 265874 44074 (385619) (63924)

3-126

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HMX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 1471 3026 (4825) (9929)

r at Pc cms (ins) 0587 0734 (0231) (0289)

KN initial 2353 3953

KN average 2421 4131

C ms (fts) 14159 13741 (46425) (45083)

C efficiency 945 916

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 599055 6320560 (134673) (1420919)

F (fF dttb) N (ib) 7602 100645 (1709) (22626)

it (fF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s) 608823 6498885 (136869) (1461008)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 201478 215001 (20545) (21924)

Isp efficiency 8901 8868

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s) 231761 229240 (23633) (23376)

Expansion ratio 71 72

3-127

Table 3-53 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goal

Achieved Value

Alternate Propellant SB-92 (HMX) SB-141 (HMX)

Property Goal ANH-12 ANH-33 (15 HMX) (17 HMX)

Burning Rate at 089 0785 0813 690 Ncm 2 (035) (0309) (032) (1000 psia) BATES Motor cms (ins)

Pressure Exponent lt042 032 037 BATES motor

Delivered Vacuum 2403 23732 23183 Isp N-skg (s) (gt245) (2422) (2364)

71)

HCl in Exhaust 3

Meets Card Gap Requirement for Class 2 yes yes Class 2 required (negative (negative

at 30 cards) at 30 cards)

pressure it was decided to miodify the baseline propellant system to

meet a burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) This modified baseline applies to the dual propellant concept with the alternate propellant only It does not apply to the current Shuttle design requirements The 081 cms (03 ins) burning rate has been achieved and demonstrated in 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings The modified PBAN formulation is referred to in this report as the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

In modifying the basic PBAN formulation to meet the new burning

rate requirement a study was made of the effect on the burning rate of adjusting the Fe203 burning rate catalyst concentration and the

particle size blend of the AP oxidizer The desired burning rate was achieved with a formulation containing a biomodal blend of

Table 3-54 gives the final formulationoxidizer and 0 Fe203 the density and some burning characteristics of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

3-128

Table 3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend

Ingredients Wt

Ammonium perchlorate

200 pm 4900 10 pm 2100

Aluminum (Alcoa 1230) 1600

PBAN polymer 1204

DER-331 196

10000

Density 2500 (770F) = 17743 gcm3 (00641 lbin3 ) Burn Rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 081 cms (032 ins) Pressure exponent n = 0228 at I

345 Ncm 2 (00 psia) lt Pc lt 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

The burning rate of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant was verified by test firing several 5 x 10 motors using 45 kg (-10 lb) of propellant over a range of pressures Figure 3-20 shows the burning rates and corresponding Kn values The burning rate equation for this modified PBAN propellant based on the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings is

r = 00668 PC0228

3-129

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 8104

1524 6

1016- 4

0508 - 2

E K - 0 5x 10 MOTOR DATAshy

0254 - 1000 10 - 1

0203 n = 0228 800 8 z 0152- a = 00668 600 6

z z 0102 -400 4

200 20051

0025 _I _I I I 10-2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant)

Batch No SB-78

3-130

SECTION IV

UNWORKED AREAS

The program as originally planned included a significant effort in the development of the candidate alternate propellant physical propshyerties and checks to verify adequacy of candidate alternate propellant in the bipropellant grain The reduction of funds and scopeof the program left many of these tasks unworked If the alternate propelshylant concept for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Motor is pursued on another program then the following unworked areas should be worked

(1) Candidate alternate propellant physical property improvement

(2) Physical property characterization of unaged alternate

propellant

(3) Aging of alternate propellant

(4) Bipropellant interface bond unaged and aged

(5) Alternate propellant insulation interface bond unaged and aged

(6) Performance tests at altitude on candidate alternate propellant

(7) Motor tests with bipropellant grain

(8) Characterization of alternate propellant safety properties

The generally poor physical properties (primarily low strain) measured with both the ANAPAlHTPB and the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propelshylants are believed due primarily to the following causes

(1) Poor bond of the HTPB binder to the oxidizer particles

AN and HMX

(2) Crosslinking of the R-45 HTPB polymer through the double bonds caused by the acidity of AN

The approach planned to solve the poor bonding properties to the oxidizer particles was development of bonding agents for both the AN and the HMX Aerojet Solid Propulsion Company has demonstrated significantly improved physical properties in HMXAPAlHTPB propellants using polyureas as bonding agents Epoxides and polyureas were considered as candidate bonding agents for the AN Development of an acid scavengershywas considered as one of the approaches to the second cause of the poor physicals

4-1

SECTION V

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this alternate propellant development effort led to the following general conclusions

(1) It is technically feasible to minimize (lt_3 wt ) release of HCl above 1981 km (65000 ft)

(2) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants Formushylation ANH-12 is the best formulation developed to date

(3) Propellant with 17 wt Class E HMX meets card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(4) The basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant is the second most promshyising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants

(5) More than 1000 wt AP (gt3 HCI in propellant exhaust) is required in the ANAPAlHTPB propellant to meet the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) Formulation AN-71 with 2000 wt AP is the best formulation of this type developed to date

(6) The basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant (0 HCl) is the least promising candidate and probably not viable for achieving program goals

(7) A few of AP is essential to achieve good aluminum comshybustion

(8) Good castability and acceptable pot life were achieved with all three basic alternate propellants

(9) Additional development effort is needed to improve the physical properties of any of the candidate propellants

(10) The small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justify the potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradashytion

(11) The Monsanto phase stabilized E-2 AN is the preferred AN type because it has the best physical and handling propershyties at comparable cost compared to other AN types

(12) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 15 and 17

5-I

(13) With additional effort to optimize the formulation with regard to HMX level burning rate modifier level and oxidizer particle size the program goals ban be met with an ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant system

5-2

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM

SOLUBILITY OF MTN INI HYDROCARBON BINDER

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

MMORANDUM

From 2051BCTo 563 Via 205

Subj Solubility of MTN in hydrocarbon binder

1 A study was conducted to determine if MTN could be used in the R45 binder system for the NASA II propellant Dicetyladipate (DOA) would be used for a co-solvent

2 Figure 1 is a portion of a phase diagram for the MTN-DOA-R45 system Areas to the right of the curve are two phase Areas to the left of the curve are single phase The effect of temperature is also shown

3 For Figure 2 TP90B was used instead of DOA TP90B is not as effective a co-solvent as DOA

4 Beccause PPG-1225 (a polypropylene glycol) is soluble both in R45 afidMTN it also was invesrigated PFG-1225 has an advantage over DOA in that it is a reactive polymer and could contribute to the mechanical strength as well as providingco-solubility In Figure 3 a 5050 mixture of R45 and PGshy1225 was used for the starting material The solubility of MTN was determined Because PPG-1225 was not a very goodco-solvent DOA was added to enhance the solubility Areas to the right of the curve are two phase and areas to the left of the curve are single phase

5 For Figure 4 a starting material of 733 R-45 and 261 PPG-1225 was used DOA was used to enhance the solubility of MTN in the system

6 It was determined that adiponitrile was not solulle in R45 and therefore could not be used to replace DOA

7 It was determined that R-18 (a polyglycol adipate) was not soluble in R45 and therefore could not be used to replacePPG-1225

8 A sample from Figure 1 was cured with IPDI This will be used to evaluate the long term effect of the nitrate ester on the binder system

Enclosure (1)

A-i

OrNA PALi I

1

ROOM--H- 2 - I

____

-OM I H j 1 35 TEMPERATURE i TI I ItI

I I I I

25

I 3 0 Z _--_ _ _

i i ii

5 n

JI t II it

t - -- -

151 1 1H - IL I

i s _ _

I- III I I I

715

MTffN 20 2 P

Figure 1 So bility of DOA and TN plusmnn R-A5

A-2

- -

40

Lj

r -

11- f

- - iutm

30 HH

-4-

__I_ ____

~ I

~vt

_

[ I_ _ iJ

25 _ _ _

1 1kH I __ _ _ _- _ _ __ _ _

-H 71

- r T--- W 4J-W-L -- t ___ __

_ _ _ __ _ _

q----i- -

52

Figure2 Solubility o f P9BadM1 nR4

A-3

iplusmn II1 -shyI~hhiI4plusmnplusmnt~~t~ -

LL J-

rO zt_-il 4 it-T i -- - -- --a -- 4- shy

-- 4 tL ---L-C-- 1 ------ 13-F- --shy

--- 4 i

I _

I I --0F

L II

it I _ _ _- _ I___

I- - -- - - - ---- shy--_ _ __ __-L J _ _

I - i t1 hIIt -____I j I

-+4 4 1 - - - -I 7 _ -J shy______ _ 2---2--I_lc_

L L rI-T- r

4 -I - -t -- u

10 15 20 25 30 N

Figure 3 Solubility of DOA and LMN in 50 R-4550 PG-1225

A-4

1

35 f

it-lt-ir

II I II

303i-- h

4o

z5-11144_FLI Lb deg T - shy i

bull

25

- -

20

I

- i11 fI1I

Ii JIf j -shy

1 iifIF

I I j I

dstkj tji--4

-4--4 1

1

I0tLLIL t

I

1wi

IFI 4 I

r

iiL -shy plusmn4 4 - H _

64211

I

L3

M -44

t

-i-

__

5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 4 ltSolubility of DOA and MTN in 733 R-45267 PPG-1225

A-5

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

9 -Ifan 88 (or 84) solids loaded 6 polymeric binder system will give acceptable physical properties then the

following formulations should be investigated

R-45 PPG1225 DA MT__N Al AP 1HM AN

10 4360 - -40 20 15 20 44 16 36 24 15 10 20 43

5360 - 40 20 15 10 10 44 1-6 36 24 15 10 10 53

15 10 20 3960 - 66 34 44 16 62 38 15 10 20 39

To properly evaluate these they should be compared to

AL AP HMK ANR-45 DOA 5360 60 15 10 20

10 53100 20 15 20

A quick look at some of the theoretical results to date indishycate that these substit-utions of - MTNfor Inert polymer -may result ina gain of about18 pounds seclb in impulse and a gain of 0001 poundscu in in density

C EJOHNSON

Copy to 205 2051BC 2051C1 TDI

A-6

PU BLICATION79-29

Page 10: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION - 1-1

II SUMMARY- 2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPA1HTPB ------------------------- 2-2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXAlHTPB ------------------------ 2-2

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB --------------------- 2-2

D SYSTEM NO 4 MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE --------------- 2-3

III PHASE I PROGRAM -------------------------------------------- 3-1

A OBJECTIVE -------------------------------------------- 3-1

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS ---------------------------------- 3-1

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS ------------------------- 3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA ------------------------------------- 3-2

E PROGRAM APPROACH -------------------------------------- 3-2

F NOS PARTICIPATION ------------------------------------- 3-5

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE ------------ ---------------------- 3-5

H DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------- 3-6

IV UNWORKED AREAS --------------------------------------------- 4-1

V CONCLUSIONS ------------------------------------------------ 5-1

APPENDIX

A SOLUBILITY OF MTN IN HYDROCARBON BINDER -------------- A-i

Figures

3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB --------- 3-14

3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5 AP in ANAPAlHTPB --------- 315

ix

3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPAlHTPB -------------- 3-16

3-4 Specific Volume- of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature--------------------------------------- 3-26

3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ---------------------- 3-31

3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Gulf AN) ------------------- 3-39

3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-40

3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ---------------------------- 44

3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73 ---------------- 57

3-10 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74 ------ 3-58

3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTBP Propellants ---------------------------- 3-65

3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140 --------------- 74

3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-89

3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (HMX) Formulation ANH-9 ----------------------------------- 3-93

3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN ---------- 3-96

3-16 Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------ 3-98

3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92 -------------------------------------- 3-118

3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-11 ------------------------------------- 3-121

3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPAlHTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-l06 ------------------------------------- 3-125

x

3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant) Batch No SB-78 -------------------------------------- 3130

Tables

21 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ---------------------------------- 2-4

22 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-5

23 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I ----------------------- 2-6

3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN ------------------------------------------- 3-7

3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN --------------------------------------- 3-9

3-3 Propellant Exhaust Composition ----------------------- 3-13

3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations ----------------------------------- 3-18

3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-20

3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids) ----------- 3-21

3-7 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received Properties ------------------------------------------- 3-23

3-8 Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics -------------------------------------- 3-24

3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-28

3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P---------------------------------------- 3-32

3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-33

3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPA1HTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-36

3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ----------------------------- 3-38

xi

3-14 Evaluation of-Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 42

3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------------ 43

3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants -------------------------- 45

3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------- 48

3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants ------------------------ 3-50

3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB

Propellants ------------------------------------------ 3-52

3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations --------- 54

3-21 BATES-Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant ---- 3-59

3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant ---- 3-61

3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Level Variations ----- 3-66

3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (2 Ballistic Modifier) ------------------- 3-68

3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation ---------- 3-70

3-26 BATES Motor Test Data Summary AN-71 Propellant ------ 3-72

3-27 AN4APAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goals --------------------------------------------- 3-75

3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests -Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------ 3-76

3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-77

3-30 ANHMXHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX) --------------- 3-79

3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes) ------------------------------------------ 3-81

3-32 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHNXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation ----------------------- 3-82

xii

3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests ----------------------------------------shy 3-83

3-34 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) ------------------------------shy 3-85

3-35 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX) -----------------------------shy 3-87

3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)-----------shy 3-90

3-37 ANHNXADHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation ----------------------------- 3-91

3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX DOA Plasticizer)------------- 3-94

3-39 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX IDP Plasticizer)------------- 3-95

3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AP Particle Size Variation (MX) ------- ------------------------- 3-97

3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - BallisticModifier Particle Size Variation ------------------------------ 3-99

3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant ------------------------- 3-101

3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data --------------------------------- 3-103

3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A With Class E)---------------------------------------- 3104

3-45 ANHMXAPAiHTPB Formulation - HMX Level (Class E HMX) ---------------------------------------- 3-106

t46-PL Hazard Test Data (Class E)----------------------- 3-107

M3-47 NOS Space ShuttleAlternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation ----------------------- 3-109

3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured -------- 3-111

3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

ANHMXAPHTPB Propellant Type ----------------------- 3-113

3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant ---- 3-119

3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-33 Propellant ---- 3-122

3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-18 Propellant ---- 3-126

xiii

3-53 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties-vs Goal ----------------------------------- 3-128

3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend --------------------------- --------------------- 3-129

xiv

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

This report presents results from the JPL study to investigatethe feasibility of developing an acceptable alternate propellant systemfor the Shuttle solid rocket motor (SEM) boosters based on the non-chlorine containing oxidizer ammonium nitrate (AN) The following basic criteria for this Phase 0 feasibility study were established by the NASA-MSFC

(1) A five-month feasibility study would be undertaken

(2) Any candidate propellants must conform to a hazards classishyfication of Class 2 as determined by card gap tests

(3) The propellant exhaust must not contain more than 3 HC Zero HCl was to be the goal

Following the above guidelines the JPL began a Phase Zero fiveshymonth feasibility program in September of 1974 (Ref 1) JPL was directedby MSFC to investigate four basic propellant systems mutually agreed upon by MSFC and JPL These four basic propellant systems were the following

(1) AN20 Albinder

(2) AN10 Albinder

(3) AN5 AP20 Albinder

(4) AN5 AP10 Albinder

Toward the end of the Phase 0 program the above four basic proshypellants had been developed to a point of scale-up of each formulation to 113-kg (250-1b) batch mixes loading and test firing of 227-kg(5-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests Programresults at this point had demonstrated that

(1) Good processability of an 88 solids loaded ammonium nitrate propellant was possible (Previous to this workthe maximum solids achieved with ammonium nitrate systems was approximately 80)

(2) A few percent (5 to 10) of ammonium perchlorate as a co-oxidizer in the ammonium nitrate systems was essential to satisfactory aluminum combustion

(3) An aluminum content of 20 in the ammonium nitrate system was considerably above optimum for maximum delivered specific impulse

With these results serving as new guidelines a fifth formulation was developed and evaluated in BATES motor tests This propellant formulation

1-1

was an 88 solids formulation of the following composition 63 AN10 AP15 Al12 HTPB binder

The main conclusion drawn from the results of this five-month feasibility study was that with the necessary time and funds the develshyopment of an alternate propellant system for the Shuttle SRM based largely on ammonium nitrate as the oxidizer was feasible The fifth propellant described above was selected as a baseline candidate system and served as the basis for establishing the goals and criteria for a Phase I follow-on effort to this feasibility study

The concept for the utilization of the alternate propellant was a dual propellant solid rocket motor -The Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor would be manufactured containing the alternate low-HCl propellant first as an outer layer of propellant followed by an inner layer of the current PBAN propellant modified to the new burning rate requirement During a Shuttle vehicle launch the baseline PBAN propellant would burn for the first phase of Shuttle Booster operation At an altitude of approxshyimately 1981 km (65000 ft) the PBAN propellant would be expended and the burning transitioned into the low-HCl (less than 3 by weight of the exhaust products) alternate propellant The feasibility of a satisshyfactory transition from a propellant with an all-ammonium perchlorate oxidizer to one consisting primarily of ammonium nitrate oxidizer was also demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by successfully manufacshyturing and test firing a dual propellant BATES motor charge

1-2

SECTION II

SUMMARY

This summary is a general over-view of the Alternate Propellant Program A more detailed summary of each respective area of effort is included in the main body of this report The primary objective of the program was to develop a candidate alternate propellant for the Shuttle SRM boosters which would eliminate or minimize the HCl in the exhaust from the solid propellant boosters during operations above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude A set of program constraints was defined to serve as guidelines for the Phase I program effort Among the constraints was the requirements of a Class 2 hazards classification for any candidate propellant The detailed constraints have been outlined in the foregoing pages Along with these program guidelines specific goals were estabshylished that were as follows

(1) Propellant burning rate = 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) Propellant pressure exponent of the burning rate lt 042

(3) Vacuum delivered specific impulse gt 2402 N-skg (245 s) at an expansion ratio of 716

(4) Matched burning rates of the alternate propellant and the baseline PBAN propellant system at 400 Ncm2 (580 psia)

(5) HCl content of the propellant exhaust lt 3

Goal (4) also introduced the requirement of modifying the burning rate of the existing Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a burning rate requirement consistent with the foregoing goals for the alternate proshypellant The burning rate requirement for the modified Shuttle baseline propellant PBAN propellant was established to be 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) chamber pressure

Three basic propellant systems were defined as candidate systems to be developed within these constraints and guidelines The three systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

Based on the results from the Phase 0 program that preceded this Phase I program it was established that the aluminum content would be held constant at 15 wt in all formulations Also the AP content of the No 1 and No 3 system was to be 10 A status summary of each of the three alternate propellant systems and the modified PBAN Shuttle baseline propellant follows

2-1

A SYSTEM NO 1 ANAPAlHTPB

This propellant system contains 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) and 15 aluminum powder The development has progressed through the static testing of 32-kg (70-1b) propellant charges in the BATES motor static testing being limited to sea level conditions A vacuum delivered Isp at an expansion ratio eof 70 corrected from the sea level data of 2281 N-skg (2326 s) has been demonstrated This measured value of Is is equivalent to 888 of the theoretical value at the test condiions A burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) of 0546 cms (0215 ins) with a pressure exponent of the burning rate of 0278 has also been demonstrated with BATES motor firings As can be seen the Isp and burning rate goals have not been attained whereas the pressure exponent goal has been exceeded by a considerable margin It is doubtful at this point whether the Isp or the burning rate goals can be achieved with this basic system within the present program conshystraints One way of achieving the ballistic goals would be to increase the AP content of this propellant To do so however would increase the HC content of the exhaust above that of the current exhaust conshystraint of not more than 3 wt of HC1

In order to meet the specific impulse and burning rate goals a propellant formulation containing 20 wt of AP was developed and tested first in 45-kg (10-1b) motors followed by two 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings The specific impulse goal of 2402 N-hkg (245 s) was attained with this propellant The burning rate at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) exceeded the 089-cms (035-ins) goal A burning rate of 097 cms (038 ins) was measured The pressure exponent measure was 048 which is higher than the goal However it is believed that this pressure exponent can be reduced The HC1 content in the exhaust at an expansion ratio of 716 is calculated to be 6 wt This 6 HC1 still represents an 80 reduction in the HC1 content from that of the baseline PBAN propellant system The-hazards classification of the ANAPA1HTPB system is Class 2

B SYSTEM NO 2 ANHMXA1HTPB

This system contains 15 aluminum also but no AP Due to a cutback in projected program funds however thedecision was made to discontinue the development of this system This decision was made very early in the development phase of this propellant and therefore no useful ballistic data is available at this time

C SYSTEM NO 3 ANHMXAPA1HTPB

Of the three alternate propellant systems initially planned for development this system is the best candidate to date for meeting all the program goals Theoretical calculations showed that the maximum specific impulse for this propellant system was in the range of 170 to 175 HMX (Table 3-2) Therefore this system with three levels of HMX was developed scaled up to 113-kg (250-1b) mixes and loaded and test fired in 45-kg (10-1b) test motors followed by 32-kg (70-1b)

2-2

BATES motor firing Of the three levels of HMX evaluated in motor firing the highest ISD was measured with the formulation containing 15 wt HMX showing that the experimental optimum HMX level- is somewhat less than 17 wt for this system The 15 and 17 wt HMX formulations were demonstrated to be Class 2 whereas the 175 wt HMX propellant was borderline Class 7

Preliminary results from Crawford Bomb burning rates showed a burning rate of 0950 cms (0374 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) for the 17 wt HMX formulation Time did not permit verifying this burning rate in motor tests prior to committing to the scale-up and loading of the 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors However indications -were that the 089-cms (035-ins) burning rate would be achieved in motor tests with 3 ballistic modifier in the formulation -- a cutback from the 4 in the other two HMX formulations In the interest of time a reduction in the ballistic modifier (a mixed burning rate catalyst) of 1 was made in the scale-up propellant batch from which the BATES motors were loaded Unfortunately this was too large a reduction in modifier and test results from firing the BATES motors showed a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) for the 17 wt HMX formulation (ANH-33)

The formulations of the five candidate alternate propellants and the modified PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 2-1 Table 2-2 lists the theoretical ballistic properties of the six propelshylants and also the HCi and A1203 (particulates) contents Table 2-3 summarizes the measured performance values as determined by BATES motor firings The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions with nozzle expansion ratios of 716 The measured sea level values were then corrected to vacuum values by the following equation

PeAe I vac ms =-I5 pact ms

D SYSTEM NO i MODIFIED PBAN BASELINE

The work statement of this Alternate Propqllant Program also called for modifying the current Shuttle baseline propellant to meet a new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) while not changing the major ballistic properties such as I__ of the system This effort has been completed and the 081-cms (032-ins) burning rate met and demonstrated in motor firings The desired modification was accomplished by removing the iron oxide burningshyrate catalysts (Fe203 ) and adjusting the particle size blend of the oxidizer The burning-rate equation for this modified baseline is r = 00668 Pc0 228

A detailed discussion of the three candiate alternate propellant systems as well as the total program effort follows

2-3

Ingredients

Solids

AN

AP

HMX (Class E)

Al

Fe203

AD

CU-0202 P

Binder

HTPBe

PBANd

Table 2-1 Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

TP-H1148a AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

86 88 88 88 88 88

-- 5900 5100 44o0 4300 4150

6960 1000 2000 1000 1000 1000

-- -- -- 1500 1700 1750

1600 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

040 b -- -- -- -shy

-- 200 -- 200 100 200

-- 200 200 200 200 200

-- 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

1400 -- -- -shy

aCurrent Shuttle baseline propellant also to be adjusted

bTo be adjusted

CCured with a diisocyanate (IPDI)

dCured with an epoxy (Der-331)

Table 2-2 Theoretical Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Parameter TP-H1148 AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Tf K 3471 2695 2845 2748 2765 2756

Te K

C ms (fts)

Isp0 N-skg (s)

2327

1371 (5155)

25723 (2623)

1563

1481 (4860)

24203 (2468)

1678

1568 (4949)

24624 (2511)

1570

1505 (4937)

24507 (2499)

1575

1513 (4965)

24634 (2512)

1571

1509 (4950)

24556 (2504)

U Is vac (a E 716)N-skg (s)

27135 (2767)

25684 (2619)

26115 (2663)

26007 (2652)

26144 (2666)

26066 (2658)

HC in exhaust 209 303 61 303 303 303

A1203 in exhaust 302 283 283 283 283 28

Table 2-3 Measured Performance of Shuttle SRM Alternate Propellant Candidates Phase I

Ballistic Property

Program Goal

AN-25

Candidate Propellant Test Resultsa

AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

C ms (fts) - 1432 1460 1450 1431 1415

(4700) (4791) (4759) (4694) (4643)

C efficiency - 953 972 962 945 945

Isp vac at E = 716 N-skg (s)

_gt2403 (245)

22849 (2330)

24026 (2450)

23752 (2422)

23183 (2364)

23173 (2363)

Isp efficiency 888 923 912 887 8901

Burning rate cms at 690 Ncm2 (ins at 1000 psia)

gt_089 (035)

053 (021)

097 (0 38 )b

079 (031)

081 (032)

074 (029)

Pressure exponent n lt042 028 048 031 037 031

Hazard

classification 2 2 2 2 2 7 (marginal)

aTest data from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings at PC 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

bData point based on 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings

SECTION III

PHASE I PROGRAM

A OBJECTIVE

The program objective of the Phase I program the results of which are documented in this report was to develop an alternate propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster motors which would eliminate or minimize the H1 in the exhaust from the motors

B PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS

The Phase I development effort was conducted within some very specific constraints These program constraints were

(1) Minimize the design impact on the present solid booster

(2) Eliminate or minimize Llt 3) the HC1 release from the booster motors during operation above 1981-km (65000-ft) altitude

(3) Any candidate alternate propellant must confori to a Class 2 hazards classification

(4) The program was to be conducted within government as a contingency

(5) The payload schedule and cost impact of the Phase I effort on the Shuttle project were to be assessed concurrently

C CANDIDATE PROPELLANT SYSTEMS

Three basic pandidate propellant systems were selected for consideration in this development program These propellant systems were

(1) An ANAPAlHTPB binder system

(2) An ANHMXAlHTPB binder system

(3) An ANHMXAPAlHTPB binder system

In addition to the above three completely new propellant systems a modification of the current baseline PBAN propellant was to be made This modification consisted of adjusting the burning rate of the PBAN propellant to a burning rate of 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) [The baseline PBAN propellant burning rate was approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)]

3-1

D PROGRAM CRITERIA

As has been stated the criteria for the Phase I program effort was established as a result of the Phase 0 feasibility study The scope of effort and propellant performance goals thus established were as follows

(1) Initiate the development of three basic candidate alternate propellant systems

(2) Modify the current Shuttle baseline PHAN propellant to meet

the new burning-rate requirement of 081 cms (032 ins)

(3) The propellant performance goals were

(a) Burning rate = 689 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(b) Pressure exponent lt 042

(c) Delivered vacuum specific impulse at an expansion ratio of 716 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(d) Theburning rates of the candidate alternate propellants and the Shuttle baseline PBAN propellant should be matched at a pressure of 400 Ncm 2 (580 psia)

(e) HCI in the exhaust _ 3

(4) The development program was to include in addition to - the above

(a) Processing studies

(b) Physical property studies

(c) ropellant aging studies

(d) Propellant hazards classification testing

(e) Propellant performance testing

(f) Investigation of the compatibility between the alternate propellant and the current baseline PBAN propellant and between the alternate propellant and the Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) insulation

E PROGRAM APPROACH

The following outline details the general approach taken in the investigation of the various aspects of this program

3-2

1 Theoretical Studies

() Maximize delivered specific impulse at 88 solids

(a) Aluminum content

(b) HMX content

(c) High-energy plasticizer content (TMETN)

2 Burning Rate Studies 089 cms (035 ins) Goal

(1) Particle size blend of oxidizer

(2) Investigate and compare catalyst type and concentration

(a) Fe203

(b) Ferrocene

(c) Milori blue

(d) CU-0202 P shy

(e) Inert plasticizer level (DOA)

(f) High-energy plasticizer (TMETN)

(g) HMX

(h) Zirconium powder

(i) Other

Burning rates to be determined via Crawford Bomb strand burning and 5 x 6 motor tests

3 Physical Property Studies

(1) Binder stoichiometry

(2) Plasticizer level and type

(a) Free plasticizer

(b) Internal plasticizer (chemically bonded)

(3) Degree of crosslinking

(4) Cure time and temperature

3-3

Evaluate properties Tensile strength

Elongation

Modulus

Hardness

Density

4 Processing Studies

(1) Process variables

(a) Mixer speeds

(b) Mix duration

(c) Ingredient addition sequence

(d) Other

5 Compatibility Studies

(1) PBAN propellant to alternate propellant bond

(a) As cured surfaces

(b) Machined surfaces

(2) Alternate propellant to insulation bond

6 Safety Hazard Tests

(I) Card gap

(2) Impact

(3) Auto-ignition shy

(4) Blast~ng cap

(5) Friction sensitivity

(6) Spark sensitivity

3-4

7 Aging Studies

(1) Propellant aging-physical properties

(a) Ambient temperature

(2) Propellant-propellant bond

(a) Ambient temperature

8 Motor Testing

(1) 5 x 6 motors - pressure only

(2) BATES motors - pressure and thrust

9 Shuttle Baseiine Propellant Modification

Adjust burning rate to 081 cms (032 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

F NOS PARTICIPATION

The Naval Ordnance Station Indian Head Maryland wLs funded by JPL to participate in certain aspects of the Alternate Propellant Program This funding of the NOS was a relatively low level of funding and designed to support the program through the investigation of certain very specific tasks The general areas of the NOS participation were

(1) Investigation of the solubility of the high-energy plasticizer TMETN in (a) R-45 HTPB polymer and (b) R-45 HTPB polymerDOA plasticizer

(2) Determine the limits of TMETN for a Class 2 propellant in an (a) all AN propellant system (b) ANAP system and (c) ANAPHMX system

(3) Investigation of the limits of HMX Ior a Class 2 inert binder propellent

(4) Hazards testing of candidate propellant formulations

(5) Investigation of HMX and AP particle size ef~eots and ballistic modifier effects on candidate propellant ballistics

G PROGRAM SCHEDULE

The Phase I effort of the Shuttle Alternate Propellant Program began April 1 1975 as an 18-month program The program schedule was later revised and lengthened to a 30-month program Much later in the program (April 1976) following several revisions to the program

3-5

schedule the planned scope of effort was reduced and the schedule cut to

conclude the program on June 30 1976 This reduction in scope and schedule

time became necessary due to a cut in the anticipated program funds

H DISCUSSION

Theoretical Studies

As has been discussed in the introduction to this report the Phase 0 feasibility study (Ref 1) results established the basis for

the Phase I effort Theoretical studies had been conducted during the Phase 0 work analyzing the effects of solids loading oxidizer ratios

binder composition etc on the thermoballistic properties of the proshy

pellant types under consideration Therefore at the start of the Phase I

program effort the guidelines for formulating the candidate alternate propellants to be developed were fairly well defined Consequently the

theoretical studies reported here involved only formulations with certain

constant parameters such as 88 total solids 15 aluminum and a binder based on plasticized HTPB

Table 3-1 gives summary tabulations of the primary thermoballistic properties of a number of candidate formulations containing AN AP and

HMX as oxidizers and the binder plasticized with the high-energy plasticizer

TMETN Iron oxide at the 1 level was included as a burning rate modifier The relevant Shuttle SRM baseline PBAN propellant properties are also shown in the table for reference As can be seen the formulation containing 25 HMX 10 AP and 25 TMETN plasticizer in the binder (12 HTPB binder) matches within 49 N-skg (05-s) specific impulse to that of the Shuttle baseline propellant That formulation however would be a Class 7 proshy

pellant and therefore could not be considered as a candidate

Table 3A2 shows the effects of varying the AP content the HMX conshy

tent and the type and content of the burning rate modifiers A combination

of ammonium dichromate (AD) and copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was selected

as the primary burning rate modifiers for this work Approximately two seconds of impulse difference is calculated for equal amounts of Fe203 and mixed AD and CU-0202 P (4 Fe203 versus 2 AD and 2 CU-0202 P) The calculations also show that for the 88 total solids system with 15 aluminum and 10 ammonium perchlorate (AP) tpe theoretical optimum amount of HMX for maximum impulse is in the range of 17 to 175 The

experimental optimum HMX level for maximum delivered IsD however

appears to be something less than 17 wt This is eviaenced by the results from 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor tests of propellants containing 150 170 and 175 HMX The measured ballistics of these formulations

are tabulated in Table 2-3 in the summary section of this report As will be seen in Table 2-3 the highest measured Isp with an HMX formulation

was with FormulationNumber ANH-12 which contains 150 HMX

These theoretical calculations referred to above were made using

a JPL computer program based on the minimization of free energy to

calculate both the equilibrium and frozen flow thermoballistic properties

of chemical compositions

3-6

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN

Formulationa Ballistics

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

AN AP HIX Al

TMETN in

Binder Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P T0 K C

ms (fts)

T (Sea Lcve Optimum) N-skg (s)

Vac 1 (c = 7)

N-skg (a)

Shuttle PBAN Baseline Propellantb(Density 17714 gcm 3 00640 lbin3) 3515 1578 (5176) 25752 (2626) 27136 k2767)

62 10 0 15 0 1 2825 1503 (4931) 24536 (2502) 25966 (2648)

62 10 0 15 10 1 2902 1511 (4956) 24674 (2516) 26095 (2661)

62 10 0 15 20 1 2977 1518 (4980) 24791 (2528) 26213 (2673)

62 10 0 15 25 1 2982 1521 (4991) 24850 (2534) 26272 (2679)

62 0 10 15 20 1 2910 1526 (5005) 24870 (2536) 26321 (2684)

52 0 20 15 20 1 2973 1546 (5072) 25174 (2567) 26645 (2717)

47 0 25 15 20 1 3005 1557 (5108) 25321 (2582) 26900 (2743)

62 0 10 15 25 1 2916 1529 (5016) 24929 (2542) 26380 (2690)

52 0 20 15 25 1 2978 1550 (5084) 25233 (257 ) 26704 (2723)

47 0 25 15 25 1 3010 1561 (5120) 25380 (2588) 26860 (2739)

52 10 10 15 10 1 2964 1532 (5028) 24968 (2546) 26419 (2694)

42 10 20 15 10 1 3027 1554 (5100) 25272 (2577) 26753 (2728)

37 10 25 15 10 1 3658 1565 (5136) 25419 (2592) 26909 (2744)

52 10 10 15 20 1 3039 1540 (5052) 25095 (2559) 26519 (2706)

Table 3-1 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems With TMETN (Continuation 1)

Formulationa Ballistics -

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier TMETN Is (Sea Vac L

in C Level Optimum) (E = 7 AN AP HMX Al Binder Fe203 AD CU-0202 P Tc K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

42 10 20 15 20 1 3102 1562 (5124) 25399 (2590) 26870 (2740)

37 10 25 15 20 1 3134 1573 (5160) 25546 (2605) 27037 (2757)

52 10 10 15 25 1 3044 1543 (5063) 25154 (2565) 26596 (2712)

42 10 20 15 25 1 3107 1565 (5135) 25448 (2595) 26929 (2746)

37 10 25 15 25 1 3138 1576 (5171) 25595 (2610) 27086 (2762)

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

bThe Shuttle baseline propellant has 16 Al 86$ total solids

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN

Formulation ballistics

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids)

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations Pc = 690 Ncm

2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Moaifier

DensitygcM3

(lbin3 ) AN AP HMX Al

PropellantFormulation

No Fe2 0q AD CU-0202 P To K

C

Ms (fts)

Is (SeaLevel Optimum)

N-skg (s)

Vac ISp(E 7)

N-skg (s)

16634 (00601) 62 10 - 15 1 2728 1500 (4920) 24468 (2495) 25950 (2647)

0 16717 (00604) 61 10 - 15 2 2716 1490 (4887) 24320 (2480) 25801 (2631)

16800 (00607) 56 15 - 15 2 2778 1497 (4913) 24438 (2492) 25929 (2644)

16911 (00611) 51 20 - 15 2 2839 1505 (4938) -24566 (2505) 26046 (2656)

16994 (00614) 46 25 - 15 2 2904 1512 (4962) 24674 (2516) 26164 (2668)

17105 (00618) 41 30 - 15 2 2969 1519 (4985) 24791 (252b) 26282 (2680)

17188 (00621) 36 35 - 15 2 3032 1526 (5007) 24899 (2539) 24390 (2691)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 4 2692 1469 (4820) 24016 (2449) 25478 (2598)

16939 (00612) 59 10 - 15 (AN-25) - 2 2 2695 1481 (4860) 24203 (2468) 25684 (2619)

16745 (0n605) 51 20 - 15 - 2 2841 1513 (4965) 24693 (2518) 26194 (26741)

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 1)

Pl1si~sFormulitiona

Theoreticl Equilibrium Flow Calculations = Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant IS (Sea Vac I gcm3 Formulation C Love Optimum) (c = 7) (lbin 3 ) AN PP HmX Pi No Fe20q AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg ()

16911 (00611) 51 20 15 (AN-71) 2 2845 1508 (4949) 24624 (2511) 26115 (266-)

16828 (00608) 51 20 15 1 1 2841 1511 (4957) 24654 (2514) 26145 (2666)

17160 (00620) 44 10 15 15 4 2748 1492 (4895) 24320 (2480) 25811 (2632)

17216 (00622) 42 10 17 15 4 2756 1495 (4906) 24360 (2484) 25850 (263b)

- ) 415 10 175 15 4 2581 1500 (4921) 25850 (2636)

) 40 10 190 15 4 2794 1495 (4906) 257b2 (2629)

39 10 200 15 4 2776 1490 (4888) 25723 (2623)

17049 (00616) 44 10 15 15 (ANH-12) - 2 2 2748 1504 (4937) 24507 (2499) 2007 (2652)

17077 (00617) 42 10 17 15 2 2 2754 1508 (4947) 24546 (2503) 26056 (2657)

17049 (00616) 4 10 17 15 (ANH-33) 1 2 2765 1513 (4965) 24634 (2512) 26145 (2666)

L

Table 3-2 Theoretical Performance of Propellant Systems Without TMETN (Continuation 2)

BallisticsFormulations

Theoretical Equilibrium Flow Calculations

Wt of Ingredients (88 Total Solids) PC = 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Burning Rate Modifier

Density Propellant is (Sea Vac Is gcm3 Formulation C Level Optimum) M (ibin3 ) AN AP HMX Al No Fe2 03 AD CU-0202 P To K ms (fts) N-skg (s) N-skg (s)

16828 (00608) 44 10 17 15 - - 2779 1525 (5005) 24781 (2527) 26311 (2683)

16994 (00614) 44 10 17 15 - 2 2784 1518 (4981) 24723 (2521) 26243 (2676)

16911 (00611) 44 10 17 15 - 1 1 2778 1522 (4994) 24752 (2524) 26272 (2679)

17077 1509 (4950) 24556 (2504) 26066 (2658)(00617) 415 10 175 15 (ANH-18) - 2 2 2757

aAll formulations contain HTPB binder

2 Exhaust Products

The exhaust compositions of the five candidate propellants listed in Table 2-I in the report summary and that of the Shuttle PBAN baseline propellant are shown in Table 3-3 The exhaust species are shown as weight percent of the total exhaust and the exhaust composition is that at the exit plane of the nozzle with an expansion ratio of 716 calculated as the equilibrium composition

3 Combustion and Burning Rate

Two problems which were anticipated and confirmed as problems early in the Phase 0 program were low combustion efficiency and low burning rates of the aluminized ammonium nitrate propellant These subjects are discussed individually in the sections covering the different propellant systems However a few brief general comments will be made here

It was demonstrated during the Phase 0 program by way of 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motor firings that a few percent of AP was essential in the ammonium nitrate propellants in order to effect satisfactory combustion of aluminum An 88 solids 15 Al ammonium nitrate formulation containing no AP was test fired in several 227-kg (5-1b) test motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors In each case large amounts of aluminum slag remained in the motors after firing Molten aluminum could be seen being ejected through the nozzle during the test firings Greatly improved combustion resulted from incorporating 5 AP in the formulation The incorporation of 10 AP resulted in virtually zero slag remaining in the motor Therefore 10 AP was selected as a standard for this Alternate Propellant Program The three photographs of BATES motor tests (Figs 3-1 to 3-3 containing 0 5 and 10 AP respectively in the formulations) show rather dramatically the effect of AP on the combustion The glowing streams in the 0 and 5 AP firings (greatly reduced in the 5 AP test however) are produced by molten aluminum

A second technique investigated as a combustion improvement techshynique was the incorporation of zirconium metal powder into the propellant The basis for this idea was due to the fact that zirconium powder has a much lower ignition temperature than that of aluminum powder and has a relatively high heat of combustion The idea was to take advantage of this lower ignition temperature of zirconium powder to facilitate the ignition and burning of the aluminum by igniting and burning and thereby supplying sufficient added heat to the system to more effectively ignite and burn the aluminum This technique however did not demonstrate any real improvement in the measured performance but rather a decrease and was therefore not investigated beyond the initial BATES motor test firings

3-12

Table 3-3 Propellant Exhaust Comsition

Propellant PBAN AN-25 AN-71 ANH-12 ANH-33 ANH-18

Solids 86 88 88 88 88 88 AP 6960 10 20 10 10 10 HMX - - - 15 17 175

Tel K 2327 1563 1678 1570 1575 1571

MoI Wt of Products 2756 2309 2360 2285 2275 2281

Speciesa wt

AlCl 00094 - - - -AIC10 00086 - - - shy

-A1C12 00098 - - -

AICI3 00053 - - - shy-AlHO2 00012 - - -

Cl 02961 - 00007 - -

CO 232928 189953 191619 256367 264700 267944 39486 61302 58679 46105 44899 42773CO2

Cr203(L) - 10020 02090 10020 06050 10020 Cu - 00038 00184 00044 00044 00044 CuC(L) - 14543 11840 14513 14475 14513 CUM - 00891 04188 00901 00940 00901

-Fe 00134 - - -

FeC12 05998 00621 00621 00596 00583 00583 H 00191 00001 00002 00001 00001 00001 H2 18804 29663 27301 32744 32941 33221

aCl 209284 30346 60149 30357 30346 30357 HO 00321 - 00002 - -

H20 101499 154534 157204 95971 91721 86539 85862 221739 203436 225998 228954 226707N2

NH3 - 00905 00003 00005 00005 00005 NO 00018 05780 - - shy

0 00005 shy02 00003 - - shy

A1203(C) 302097 283418 283418 283418 283418 283418

aConcentrations less than 1 x I0-5 moles100 g exhaust are omitted

L = liquid C = crystalline

3-13

ft

iI

Figure 3-1 BATES Motor Firing of 0 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

Imm

Figure 3-2 BATES Motor Firing of 5$ AP in ANAPA1HTPB

go

Figure 3-3 BATES Firing of 10 AP in ANAPA1HTPB

A third technique investigated was that of using a chromate-coated aluminum powder in place of the standard aluminum powder This techniquealso failed to produce increased combustion efficiency of the aluminum in the propellant

Specific burning rate subjects are discussed in the discussions of the different propellant systems however some general comments will be made here As can be seen in Table 3-2 the proper selection of a burning rate catalyst must be based on more than burning-rate considerations when a rigorous effort is made to maximize specific impulse As can be seen a significant difference is calculated for the theoretical Isp between incorporating the different burning rate modifiers at the same concentration Also the modifier used can have a strong effect on the physical properties of the propellant

4 Physical Properties

This effect of specific ingredients on the physical properties of an ammonium nitrate system arises from the fact that chemical reactions other than the normal curing reactions between the prepolymer and the curing agent enter into the overall curing reactions In most compositepropellant systems the physical properties are determined largely -in addition to binder type and solids loading by the degree of crosslinkingand completeness of reactions with available cure site6 In the ammonium nitrate system however it appears that free protons produced in the system react with the double bond in the prepolymer (HTPH) backbone causing crosslinks at these sites Ammonium dichromate appears to contribute in a greater way to this crosslinking at the double bonds than some of the other burning-rate modifiers investigated On the other hand the AD subtracts less from the calculated Isp The formulating and development of an AN system therefore is complicated by these considerations The physical property problems are greatly complicated Nonconventional techniques must be found and employed in the physical property considerations in order to develop satisfactory control of adequate physical properties

5 High-Energy Plasticizer Studies

One of the approaches investigated on the program was use of high-energy plasticizers td achieve higher delivered specific impulse propellants A review of available nitrate ester plasticizers indicated that TMETN (111-trimethylolethane trinitrate) was the most promising candidate This selection was made on the basis of overall considerations of compatibility performance cost and availability Theoretical performance calculations on some typical propellant formulations with 20 wt TMETN are shown in Table 3-4

Propellant development work on this effort was done by NOS (NavalOrdnance Station Indian Head Md) Two basic formulations were inshyvestigated one with no ammonium perchlorate and one with 5 wt ammonium perchlorate A polyester (R-18) binder was selected and initial development work was done at the 82 wt solids level with 1200 wt TMETN Small

3-17

Table 3-4 Theoretical Performance Calculations - 20 Wt TMETN Formulations

Formulation 1-A

Ammonium nitrate 360 Aluminum 180 R-18 60 HMX 100 TMETN 200 Ammonium perchlorate 100

1000

Density gcm3 17300 (lbin3 ) (00625)

Flame temperature 34314 K (OF) (5723)

Vacuum specific 27115 impulse N-skg (s) (2765) E = 716

Pc 483 Ncm2

(700 psi)

Weight percent 278 HC1 in exhaust

1-B

310 180 60 100 200 150

1000

17411 (00629)

3481 (5806)

27155 (2769)

417

1-C 1-D

410 410 180 180 60 60 50 -

200 200 100 150

1000 1000

17217 17244 (00622) (00623)

3410 3430 (5678) (5714)

26988 26880 (2752) (2741)

278 416

3-18

mixes were made to check ingredient compatibility and propellant laboratorysafety properties Results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-5 along with the formulations These tests indicated that the ingredients were compatible and safety properties were adequate The two formulations were then scaled up into larger batches and card gap samples were loaded and tested Both formulations were uncastable so that the card gapsamples had to be hand packed The card gap test results are shown in Table 3-5 and suggest both formulations meet the card gap requirementsfor Class 2 propellant (lt 70 cards) However these results may be biased to give lower card gap sensitivity because of voids in the samples

Four additional formulations were then evaluated at the reduced solids level of 74 wt to improve propellant castability The polyester(R-18) binder system was used and TMETN level was held constant at 20 wt The variations made with these four formulations were variations in the levels of HMX AP and AN All the formulations were eastable and card gap samples were prepared and tested on each The details of the formulations and card gap test results are summarized in Table 3-6 General conclusion from this work was that for this propellant systemwith 20 wt TMETN a maximum level of 5 to 10 wt HMX can be used and meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

Work with the polyester (R-18) binder system was terminated and shifted to the HTPB (R-45) binder system when the early experimentalwork indicated that program goals would probably not be achieved with the polyester (R-18) Initial tests by NOS showed the solubility of TMETN (also referred to as MTN) in R-45 at 210 C (700F) was less than 1 wt They then conducted cosolubility studies with other plasticizersComplete details of these studies are shown in Appendix A Summary conclusions from this effort are as follows

(1) R-18 and adiponitrile are not soluble in R-45M

(2) DOA is more effective as a coplasticizer than TP90B and PPG-1225

(3) Maximum theoretical performance gains possible by replaceshyment of DOA with TMETN within solubility limits are about 176 N-skg (18-s) impulse and 0028 gcm 3 (O001 lbin 3 ) density

A decision was made to terminate further work with TMETN at this point in the program Primary reason for the decision was that the small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justifythe potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradation

6 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrates

An evaluation of available ammonium nitrate (AN) types was made to provide a basis for selection of the AN in development of the propellant formulations Ammonium nitrate is the major oxidizer used in all

3-19

Table 3-5 Alternate Propellant Formulations with TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 82 Wt Solids)

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder TMETN Aluminum HMX Ammonium perchlorate Ammonium nitrate

Initial card gap tests

0 Cards 35 Cards 50 Cards

70 Cards

Laboratory safety tests

Impact mm (3 consecutive positive values 5-kg weight)

Sliding friction kg (ib) 24 ms (8 fts)

Electrostatic discharge- J

(5000 V)

NOS SCC-74-69 NOS SCC-74-074

600 600 1200 1200 1800 1800 2000 1000 - 500

4400 4900

10000 10000

-pos

pos pos pos neg neg

150 -125 150 200

gt-435 (gt_960) 435 ( 960) A35 (gt_960)

gt435 (gt960)

2125 125 gt125 L125

3-20

Table 3-6 Alternate Propellant Formulations With TMETN (Polyester (R-18) Binder - 74 Wt Solids)

Formulation No NOS Mod I NOS Mod II NOS 1C NOS ID

Ingredients wt

R-18 Binder -600 600 600 600 TMETN 2000 2000 2000 2000 Aluminum 1800 1800 1800 1800 HMX 2000 2000 -500 Ammonium perchlorate - 500 1000 1500 Ammonium nitrate 3600 3100 4100 4100

10000 10000 IbO00 10000

No 8 Blasting Cap neg neg -

Test

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards -shy pos 40 Cards pos neg

(42 cards) 50 Cards pos pos neg 60 Cards neg 65 Cards pos 70 Cards pos neg neg 75 Cards pos -

80 Cards pos - -

85 Cards - Ipos and I neg - -

90 Cards 2 pos - -

100 Cards pos I pos and I neg - -

112 Cards pos - -

120 Cards pos neg - -

121 Cards 1 pos and 2 neg - -

123 Cards neg - - -

125 Cards neg 150 Cards neg

3-21

three of the basic alternate propellants ANAPAlHTPB ANHMXAlHTBP

and ANHMXAPAlHTPB

Some of the problems associated with making propellants with AN are

(1) Low true density of AN (1725 gcm3 ) which limits solids loading for processable propellants

(2) Large size and hollowness of unground as-received prills

(3) Hygroscopicity of AN and particle agglomeration

(4) Slow burning rates

(5) Low specific impulse

(6) Volumetric changes with crystal phase changes

The following three types of AN were selected for evaluation

(1) Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated

(2) U S Agri-Chemicals industrial with anti-caking agent

(3) Monsanto industrial E-2 phase stabilized

These three were selected because they are generally representative of what is currently available from industry Table 3-7 compares the as-received properties of the three AN types Table 3-8 compares some of the processing characteristics of the three AN types

The Gulf Oil special fertilizer grade uncoated has the advantage of having no additives that generally tend to reduce propellant specific impulse However this AN has a soft prill that breaks readily and is very hygroscopic Both the unground and ground materials agglomerate severely even in controlled environments These difficulties in controlling particle-size distribution with this type AN pose real problems in achieving and reproducing maximum specific impulse and burning rate in processable propellants Cost of this type AN is higher than the other two types because it is a specialty product

The U S Agri-Chemicals industrial AN has a 043 to 077 wt coating of anticaking agent on the prills The coating consists of 90 talc and 10 Petro-Ag It keeps the material free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture In addition it makes a harder prill which does not break readily Good control of particle-size distribution is possible with this type of AN Consequently processable propellants are achievable with reproducible burning rates and delivered specific impulse

3-22

Oc Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types As-Received PropertiesTable 3-7

Vendor

ltC7

Type

Appearance

Total nitrogen

Approx assay

Moisture (when manufactured)

to Additive

Screen size (US Sieve Series)

Loose bulk density gcm3

3)(lbft

Prill Density gcm3

Approx cost kg (lb)

aphase stabilized

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticakang Agent)

White prills

None

254 (115)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

industrial (Coated with Anticaking Agent)

White free-flowing spheres

(prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

025 wt min

043 to 077 wt $ coating bagent

00 wt max retained on No 6 50 wt $ max through No 6 and on a No 8 940 wt max through No 6 and on No 20 10 wt max through No 20

154

154 (7 0 )d

Monsanto Agricultural Products Co

inoustrial E-2

Pearly white free-flowing

spheres (prills)

340 wt min

971 wt $ min

05 wt min

04 to 06 wt E-2 additive c

10 wt max retained on No 6 100 wt through No 14

09611 (60)

161

a157 (71

b90 tale and 10 petroleum agent eMgo according to US Patent 3030179

taxesdBulk costs - carload quantities typically 54431-kg (60-ton) minimum Does not include freight or

Table 3-8

Property

Handling characteristics to unground

Particle size after tumble drying unground

Grinding characteristics particle size after coarse grinding in Raymond hammer mill with 4000-rpm hammer speed 160-rpm feed speed 032-cm (18-in) screen

Comparison of Ammonium Nitrate Types Processing Characteristics

Gulf Oil

Special Fertilizer Grade Uncoated (No Anticaking Agent)

Soft prill breaks easily Very hygroscopic and agglom-

erates severely

104 to 1000 pm

480 pm (avg)

US Agri-Chemicals Div of US Steel Corp

Industrial (Coated with Anttcaking Agent)

Fairly hard prill does not break readily Remains free

flowing with reasonable pro-tection from moisture

840 to 3360 pm

2200 pm (avg)

140 um (avg)

Monsanto AgraculLural Products Co

Industrial E-2 (Phase-Stabilized)

Very hard and dense prill does not bread readily

Remains free flowing with reasonable protection from moisture

1410 to 3360 pm

2000 pm (avg)

2bO pm (avg)

The Monsanto industrial E-2 phase-stabilized AN has 04-to 06 wt E-2 additive This material is MgO which pbase stabilizes-the ammonium nitrate according to U S Patent 3030179 (assigned to Monsanto Company) Figure 3-4 shows the specific volume of Monsanto E-2 AN and of AN that has not been phase stabilized versus temperature The solid line is for the Monsanto E-2 AN and the dotted line is for the AN that has not been phase stabilized Note that the volumetric changes associated with Phase III have been eliminated in the phase-stabilizedMonsanto E-2 AN Comparing Monsanto E-2 AN with the other types inTable 3-7 and 3-8 the following conclusions can be made

(1) Monsanto E-2 AN has a higher prill density than U S Agri-Chemicals AN (161 gcm3 versus 154 gcm3 )

(2) Because Monsanto E-2 is a very hard anddense prill normal handling and tumble drying does not significantly break prills Particle-size distribution remains in the range of 1410 to 3360 pm with an average size of about 2000 m

(3) Coarse grinds of Monsanto E-2 AN have an average particle size of about 280 pm which is in the size range (200 to 400 pm) for better fit with the other solids

(4) The Monsanto E-2 AN remains free flowing in both the ungroundand ground states with reasonable protection from moisture

(5) Cost of the Monsanto E-2 AN in large bulk quantities is 157 1kg (71 [lb) which is comparable to other AN types which are not phase stabilized

ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant batches have been made with all three of the AN types discussed above In general results were as follows

(1) The propellant made with Monsanto E-2 AN had lower endshyof-mix viscosities and longer casting lives than the proshypellant made with the other two types of AN

(2) Burning rates with the Monsanto E-2 AN were either comparable or slightly faster

Based on these results Monsanto E-2 AN was selected as the preferred AN type for the following reasons

(1) It is easily processed with good particle-size control It remains free flowing in both the unground and ground states with reasonable protection from moisture The prill does not readily break with normal handling or tumble drying

(2) It has typically a 5 higher prill density This lowers propellant volumetric solids loading which improves castability

(3) This AN can be ground to more optimum size distributions for improved solids packing

3-25

065

063 063

1

- BOWDEN

MONSANTO E-2 -

I

PHASE ILr

E

uS 061 IIshy

0 -

CU 059

057

055

-100 -50

Figure 3-4

0 50 100

TEMPERATURE degC

Specific Volume of Monsanto E-2 Ammonium Nitrate vs Temperature

150 200

3-26

(4) It does not have a talc anticaking coating which appears

to accelerate propellant viscosity buildup

(5) Phase stabilization minimizes volumetric changes with varying

temperature due to phase changes

(6) This AN gives comparable or slightly faster burning rates

(7) It has a comparable price to other AN types in large bulk

quantities

7 ANAPAlHTPB ( 3 Wt HC1 Exhaust)

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished

on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraint of lt 3 wt HCl in the propellant exhaust

This constraint is met by limiting the AP level in the formulation to

( 10 wt

a Burning Rate Studies Initial burning rate studies were

made to evaluate different ballistic modifier types and levels with

the basic 88 wt solids ANAPAlHTPB propellant The selection of

the ballistic modifiers was limited to those that were

(1) Commercially available

(2) Proved successful for use within rubber base propellants

(3) Non-migrating

(4) Reasonably priced

selectedAmmonium dichromate (NH4)2Cr207 at the 2 wt level was

as the primary ballistic modifier for the following reasons

(1) AN is the major oxidizer

(2) AD has been used successfully for years with AN propellants

Other ballistic modifiers were used in conjunction with the AD to enhance

burning rate and attempt to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms

(035 ins) at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) Table 3-9 shows the formulations evaluatedand the cured strand burning rates obtained

The propellant formulations were mixed as small (1000 to 1500 g)

batches using a 38-liter (1-gal) vertical Bramley mixer The propellant

was cast into RAM-225 released molds that formed individual propellant

strands and was then cured After cure the propellant strands were tested

in a conventional Crawford Bomb strand burner A subsequent study

discussed in the section on ANUNXAPAlHTPB propellant showed that

3-27

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Formulation wt Crawford Bomb Data

rb cms (ins)

Batch No

Total Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m)

Other Ballistic Modifier

Oxidizer Blend CoarseFine

At 345 Nem2

and 210C (500 psia and 700F)

At 690 Ncm2

and 210C (1000 psia and 700 F)

o

30

31 55

88 6o

59 57

10 15 2

2 2

Fe20Q

Fe203 Fe203

1

2 4

4555

442558 425575

0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0279 (0110)

0538 (0212)

0475 (0187)

0432 (0170)

32

33

49

34

60

59

57

59

2

2

2

2

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite

Copper Chromite Fe203

1

2

4

1 1

4555

442558

425575

442558

0462 (0182)

0564 (0222)

0472 (0186)

0493 (0194)

0627 (0247)

0759 (0299)

0671 (0264)

0737 (0290)estimated

50 57 2 Copper Chromite Fe203

2 2 425575 0511 (0201) 0699 (0275)

54 57 2 Copper Chromite FeF 3 (unground)

2 2 425575 0485 (0191) 0648 (0255)

35 6o 2 Milor Blue 1 4555 0399 (0157) 0625 (0246)

56 57 2 Milori Blue 4 425575 0371 (0146) 0528 (0208)

Table 3-9 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Type and Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

a Crawford Bomb Data

Formulation wt rb cms (ins)

At 3115 Ncm2 At 690 Ncm2

0 0and 21 C and 21 C

Batch Total Other Ballistic Oxidizer Blend (500 psia (1000 psia 0

No Solids AN AP Al AD (7 m) Modifier CoarseFine and 70 F) and 700 F)

W 36 88 60 10 15 2 Ferrocene 1 4555 0381 (0150) 0569 (0224)N)

42 60 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 1 4555 0429 (0169) 0594 (0234)

53 57 2 Ferric fluoride (as received) 4 425575 0356 (0140) 0490 (0193)

41 60 2 Iron phthshyalocyanine 1$ 4555 0358 (0141) 0490 (0193)

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

the strand burning rates may have been biased to give faster rates by the RAM-225 release agent However the burning rate trends and ranking of the ballistic modifiers do not appear to be biased by the RAM-225

Figure 3-5 shows strand burning rates plotted at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) versus the second ballistic modifier level for the ballistic modifier systems evaluated General conclusions from the study were as follows

(1) The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) and 2 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) gave the fastest burn rate

(2) Increasing the combined level of burning rate modifiers to greater than 4wt of theformulatibn decreased the burn rate

Although the attritor-ground (I m) ferric fluoride (FeF 3) gave a faster burning rate than CU-0202 P at the 1 wt second ballistic modifier level FeF 3 was not selected because it would have contributed HF in the propellant exhaust A preliminary selection of the ballistic modifier system was made for subsequent work The system selected was 2 wt $ ground AD and 2 wt as-received CU-0202 P

Achievement of the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2

(035 ins at 1000 psia) had not been accomplished by simple manipulation of the ballistic modifier type and level Consequently propellant developshyment effort was continued toward this goal along the following approaches

(1) Finer particle size ballisticmodifiers

(2) Finer particle size AN

(3) Greater level of fine AN

(4) Finer particle size AP

(5) Use of potassium perchlorate

Two approaches were evaluated to reduce ballistic modifier particle sizes to sizes smaller than those achievable with a hammer mill They were dry ball milling and attritor grinding The dry ball milling approach was unsuccessful with AD and CU-0202 P because they packed into a hard cake Attritor grinding of AP and FeF 3 to particle sizes smaller than 1 m has been successfully demonstrated within the solid propellant industry This method uses an attritor mill to grind material suspended in Freon between zircoa beads Attritor grinds were successfully made with AD and CU-0202 P and the particle-size reductions accomplished are summarized in Table 3-10

3-30

1016 I1

STRAND BURN RATES POSSIBLY BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

040

EU

04 E

z 0762

FIRST BALLISTIC MODIFIER 200 wt GROUND AD

FeF3 GROUND TO I

030

K c

0 10

uIX FeF 3 (UNGROUND)

Z

0 58

IRONO PHTHALOCYANINE

MILORI BLUE

x FERROCENEFe 20 3

020 zS

ln

0254 I I 0 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SECOND BALLISTIC MODIFIER LEVEL wt

Figure 3-5 Strand Burn Rate vs Second Ballistic

Modifier Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-31

Table 3-10 Particle-Size Reductions of Attritor-Ground AD and CU-0202 P

Screen Analysis Micromerograph Material 50 wt pt 50 wt pt

Particle Size pm Particle Size pm

AD

As received =575

Attritor ground (21 h) - 44

CU-0202 P

As received 21

Attritor ground (21 h) shy 17

Small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of the smaller ballistic modifier particle sizes on strand burning rates Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-11 General conclusions from this study are as follows

(1) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 1 wt FeF 3 fine ground AN and 9-gm AP reducing the FeF 3 particle size from a coarse as-received to attritor-ground 1 pm material increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2

(1000 psia) from 0594 to 0668 cms (0234 to 0263 ins) (-12)

(2) In an IDP-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P coarse ground AN and 63- AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm did not significantly change strand burning rate

(3) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (0208 to 0219 ins) ( 5)

(4) In a DOA-plasticized propellant formulation using 2 wt CU-0202 P fine ground AN and 63-gm AP reducing the AD particle size from 72 to 44 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0528 to 0556 cms (2208 to 0218 ins) (5)

3-32

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-l05 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized 40 IDP

plasticized

1200

-

1200

-

-

1200

-

1200

1200

-

1200

-

1200

-

Aluminum MD 105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground

72 pm Attritor ground

44 gm

200

-

200

-

200 -

200bull

200

-

200

-

-

200

Ferric fluoride As received Attritor ground 1 pm

100 -

-100

- -

- -

-

-

Copper chromite As received 21 pm

Attritor ground 17 pm

- 200

-

200

-

200

-

-

200

200

-

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine Ground Gulf

Oil Fine ground

Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

3150 -

2850

-

3150 -

2850

-

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050

-

-

2850

-3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

3050 -

2850

-

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 1000 9 [Lm

FEM ground 63 pm -

1000

-

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000

-

1000 1000

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-33

Table 3-11 Evaluation of Ballistic Modifier Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-42 SB-43 SB-103 SB-105 SB-118 SB-122 SB-123

Formulation No AN-34 AN-35 AN-65B AN-65D AN-25A AN-25B AN-25C

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 690 Ncm 2 0429 0465 0422 0419 0424 0439 0437 (100 psia) (0169)(0183)(0166) (0165) (0167) (0173) (0172)

At 345 Ncm 2 0594 0668 0467 0475 0528 0556 0554 (500 psia) (0234)(0263)(0184) (0187) (0208) (0219) (0218)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 047 053 014 018 030 033 033

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

In summary reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burning rates for the selected ballistic modifier system

As discussed earlier particle-size control of the unground Gulf Oil AN was a problem because of breakage of the prills during drying and handling A partial approach to this problem was to screen the unground Gulf Oil AN into a selected size range after drying and handling Smallshyscale propellant batches (1000 to 1500 g) were made using Gulf Oil AN and strand burn rate tests were performed on these batches to evaluate

(1) The effect of screened +60 to -32 mesh (250 to 570 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(2) The effect of screened +32 to -16mesh (570 to 1190 pm) AN as coarse fraction on castability and burn rate

(3) The effect of varying the fraction of AN as fine ground on castability and burn rate

The fine ground AN was ground using a hammer mill with the following settings

9600 rpm hammer speed 80 rpm feed speed

0033-cm (0013-in) screen

3-34

Fisher sub-sieve average particle size for this material was typically 20 pm The fraction of AN as fine ground was limited to less than 55wt to keep propellant processable in the small scale batches (Larger batches typically have better castability) Table 3-12 and Fig 3-6 summarize test results General conclusions from these results were

(1) All batches had poor relative castability

(2) Using unscreened unground Gulf Oil AN (broad particle-size distribution with a significant portion of fines) and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 483 to 542 wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) from 0505 to 0577 cms (0199 to 0227 ins)

(3) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0462 cms (0199 to 0182 ins)

(4) Using screened +60 to -32 mesh AN as coarse fraction and varying the fraction of AN fine ground from 300 to 483

wt increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (100 psia) from 0419 to Q462cms (0165 to 0182 ins)

(5) Changing the coarse fraction from screened +60 to -32 AN to screened +32 to -16 mesh AN reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0419 to 0404 cms (0165 to 0159 in s)

Changing the type of ammonium nitrate type from Gulf Oil to Monsanto phase stabilized AN eliminated the problem of prill breakage but did not improve castability even with IDP plasticizer as shown by Batch SB-101 in Table 3-12 The slower burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponent with Batch SB-101 compared to Batch SB-64 is due to use of IDP as the plasticizer A small-scale propellant batch SB-102 was made with a coarse ground Monsanto AN to evaluate the effect of this material on castability and burn rate The coarse ground was made using a hammer mill with the following setting 4000 rpm hammer speed 160 rpm feed speed and 032-cm (18-in) screen

Screen analysis indicated this coarse ground AN had an average particle size of approximately 280 pm Propellant castability using this material was excellent but strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was reduced from 0485 to 0442 cms (0191 to 0174 ins) 9 The burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) was not achieved by varying AN type AN particle size or fraction of AN fine ground

The effect of replacing hammer mill ground AP by fluid energy mill ground AP on propellant burning rate was evaluated in a series of five small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) batches Three batches were made using DOA plasticizer and fine ground Gulf AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 55 pm Two batches were made using IDP plasticizer and coarse ground Monsanto AN and varied AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm Results of this study are shown in Table 3-13 and Fig 3-7

3-35

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 DOA

plasticized40 IDP

plasticized

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 to 72 gm

Copper chromite as received

im21

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Screened (+60-32) Gulf Oil

Screened (+32 to -16 mesh) Gulf Oil

Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil

Fine ground Monsanto Coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground9 gm

Fraction of AN fine ground (wt )

Relative Castability

SB-64

AN-25

1200

-

200

200

1500

3050

-

-

2850

-

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-75

AN-63

1200

-

200

200

1500

2700

-

--

3200

-

1000

542

Poor

SB-48

AN-40

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

4130

--

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-48A

AN-40A

1200

-

200

200

1500

-

-

4130 -

1770

-

1000

300

Poor

SB-61

AN-53

1200

200

200

1500

-

3050

-

2850

-

1000

483

Poor

SB-101 SB-102

AN-65 AN-65A

- -

1200 1200

200 200

200 200

1500 1500

- -

- -

- -3050 3050

- -

2850 -

2850

1000 1000

483 -

Poor Excellent

3-36

Table 3-12 Evaluation of Ammonium Nitrate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-64 SB-75 SB-48 SB-48A SB-61 SB-101 SB-102

Formulation No AN-25 AN-63 AN-40 AN-40A AN-53 AN-65 AN-65A

Strand Burning Ratesa at 298 K (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm 2 0366 0414 0277 0284 0338 0419 0351 (500 psia) (0144)(0163)(0109) (0112) (0133) (0165) (0138)

At 690 Ncm2 0505 0577 0419 0404 0462 0485 0442 (1000 psia) (0199)(0227)(0165) (0159) (0182) (0191) (0174)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 047 049 060() 050 045 022 032

astrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

These results indicated the following

(1) Using DOA plasticizer fine ground Gulf AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 55 gm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0508 to 0635 cms (0200 to 0250 ins)

(2) Using IDP plasticizer coarse ground Monsanto AN and reducing the AP particle size from 90 to 63 pm increased strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0442 to 0467 cms (0174 to 0184 ins)

(3) Use of the finer (55 to 63 pm) fluid energy ground AP did not increase pressure exponent

Maximum burning rate achieved using fluid energy ground AP was 0635 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0250 ins at 1000 psia) compared to the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

3-37

Table 3-13 Evaluation of Ammonium Perchlorate Particle Size ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-62 SB-64 SB-66 SB-102 SB-103

Formulation No AN-25 AN-25 AN-56 AN-65A- AN-65B

Ingredients wt

HTPB binders 40 wt DOA plasticized 40 wt IDP plasticized

1200 -

1200 -

1200 -

-

1200 1200

Ammonium dichromate Hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as

received 21 [m 200 200 200 200 200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 -1500

Ammonium nitrate Unground Gulf Oil Unground Monsanto Fine ground Gulf Oil Coarse ground Monsanto

3050

-2850 -

3050

-2850

-

3050

-2850

-

3050 -

2850

3050 -

2850

Ammonium perchlorate Hammer mill ground 9 1m Fluid energy ground 55 pm Fluid energy ground 63 pm

1000 --

1000 -

-

1000 -

1000 -

-

-

1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Ratesa

cms at 251C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)- 0368 (0145)

0366 (0144)

0457 (0180)

0351 (0138)

0422 (o166)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0508 (0200)

0505 (0199)

064 (025)

0442 (0174)

0467 (0184)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 049 049 048 032 014

aStrand burn rates possibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-38

0762 I I I 1 030 11nSTRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY -Z o BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

0E E

COARSE FRACTION HADBROAD SIZE DISTRIBUTION a Z o

WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTION OFFINES

oC 10I0 Ishy

lt 0508 020 w

zz Z 0-COARSE FRACTION WAS 04 n SCREENED TO OBTAIN

NARROW COARSE DISTRIBUTION (+60 -32

o Z

I-MESH) WITH NO FINES

-shy

0254 20

I 30

I 40

I 50

I 60

010 70

FRACTION QF FINE GROUND AN wt

Figure 3-6 Strand Burn Rate vs Fraction AN Fine Grind ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (Gulf AN)

3-39

1270 050

E

U

o 0

I-

C

BURN RATE GOAL o

I-

D Co0

0762 FINE

DOA

GROUND AN AND

PLASTICIZER

030

0D 0o z

V) 0508-

COARSE GROUND AN AND IDP PLASTICIZER 020

0381 I I I I I 015 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) jm

Figure 3-7 Strand Burn Rate vs AP Particle Size

ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-40

A small-scale propellant batch SB-65 was made to determine whether the burning rate could be increased significantly by replacing the ground AP by ground potassium perchlorate (KP) Strand burn rate tests were made on this batch and compared to the reference Batch SB-64 as shown in Table 3-14 Strand burning rate at690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was increased from 0505 to 0531 cms (0199 to 0209 ins) 5 but pressure exponent increased from 047 to 065 This approach was dropped because of the minimal increase in burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and the significant increase in pressure exponent

b Combustion Problems One of the problems in using ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer in solid propellants is the incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered specific impulse This problem was studied in the Phase 0 effort and partially resolved by modifying the formulations to include 10 wt AP Other approaches considered on this program to improve aluminum combustion and performance were

(1) Use of aluminum and zirconium mixtures Zirconium has

lower ignition temperature than aluminum

(2) Use of dichromate-coated aluminum powder

(3) Use of aluminummagnesium alloys

(4) Use of plasticizers containing more oxidizer to obtain a more favorable oxidizerfuel ratio

Some increases in propellant burning were also considered possible with several of these approaches Because of limited time and fundsonly the first two approaches were evaluated to any extent with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant Results of these studies are covered in the following discussion

A small-scale propellant batch SB-104 was made using the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum to evaluate the effect on strand burning rates Results of these strand burning rate tests are compared to strand burning rates of reference Batch SB-103 in Table 3-15 The replacement of the uncoated MD-05 aluminum by the dichromate-coated H-5 aluminum reduced strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0467 to 0424 cms (0184 to 0167 ins) 9 No motors were loaded and tested to evaluate the effects of this dichromate-coated aluminum on delivered specific impulse

3-41

Table 3-14 Evaluation of Potassium Perchlorate ANAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-64 SB-65

Formulation No AN-25 AN-55

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 gim 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 [Lm 1000 -

Potassium perchlorate hammer mill ground 30 gm - 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0366 (0144) 0340 (013

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0505 (0199) 0531 (0209

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 049 065

Six small-scale propellant batches were made to evaluate the effects of AlZr mixtures on propellant castability and strand burning rates Three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt Fe203 The other three batches were made using the ballistic modifier system of 200 wt ground AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P Zirconium powder level was varied at 0 250 and 500 wt of propellant formulation (0 16 and 13 replacement of Al) Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-16 and Fig 3-8 General conclusions were as follows

3-42

Table 3-15 Evaluation of Dichromate-Coated Aluminum for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant

Batch No SB-103 SB-104

Formulation No AN-65B AN-65C

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 (uncoated) 1500 -

Aluminum H-5 (dichromate coated) - 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 7 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates in cms at 250C

(ins at 771F)

At 345 Ncm 2 (500 psia) 0422 (0166) 0366 (0144)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0467 (0184) 0424 (0167)

Strand Pressure Exponent

345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 014 022

3-43

1016 1 1 1 1 040

-rl STRAND BAND RATES POSSIBLY E BIASED BY RAM-225 (3 MOLD RELEASE

E

0762 030 0

CD 00 0 0 I---shy

100 CU-0202 P + 200 AD

z 0508 - 020 D

z z

- 100 Fe20 3 + 200 AD

0254 I I I -010 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ZIRCONIUM (REPLACING ALUMINUM) wt

Figure 3-8 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent Zirconium

ANAPA1HTPB Propellants

3-44

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Ingredients wt

iHTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1250 1000 1500 1250 1000

Zirconium powder --- 250 500 250 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 [m 200 200 200 200 200 200

Fe203 as received 100 100 100

Copper chromite as received --- - --- 100 100 100

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150

Ammonium nitrate fine grind Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 gm 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Totals 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)e

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0376 (0148)

0300 (0118)

0272 (0107)

0462 (0182)

0376 (0148)

0307 (0121)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0538 (0212)

0452 (0178)

0399 (0157)

0627 (0247)

0546 (0215)

0455 (0179)

3-45

Table 3-16 Evaluation of ZirconiumAluminum Mixtures for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-30 SB-37 SB-38 SB-32B SB-39 SB-40

Formulation No AN-22a AN-29b AN-30b AN-24a AN-31b AN-32b

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 390 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia) 052 058 058 044 054 057

apoor relative castability bUncastable

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

(1) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to make the propellant less castable on the 38-liter (1-gal) batch scale

(2) The 200 wt AD and 100 wt CU-0202 P ballistic modifier system gave faster burning rates than the 200 wt AD and 100 wt Fe203 ballistic modifier system

(3) Partial replacement of the aluminum by zirconium tended to reduce propellant strand burning rate and increase strand pressure exponent

Based on this study and the study of ballistic modifiers a formulation using 500 wt zirconium was selected for s6ale-up and evaluation in BATES motor firings Results of these additional tests are discussed in Section III-H-d and III-H-e

c Proc6ssing Studies Limited funds and time did not allow for any systematic study of processing variables to optimize processing conditions However processing methods and conditions were optimizedbased on experience Some of the specific approaches used for propellant mixing were

(1) Careful selections of order and manner of ingredient addition to disperse and wet solids

(2) Elevated temperatures prior to curative addition to wet and disperse solids and reduced temperatures after curative addition to minimize cure reactions

3-46

(3) Extended vacuum mix times prior to curative addition to

wet and disperse fine- solids

(4) Controlled moisture of ingredients and of the process

The effects of AN particle sizes and fraction of AN fine ground on propellant castability were discussed in conjunction with the burning rate studies

Antioxidants are commonly used with the R-45 HTPB binder to improve propellant pot life and aging stability The combination of UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexyl-p-phenylene diamine) and DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone) appears to give synergistic effects and is very effective in extending pot life Protech 2002 (UTC proprietary metalshydeactivating antioxidant) and others of the Protech series have the additional advantage of being metal scavengers They tie up the transishytion metals that catalyze radical oxidations Four small-scale propellant batches were made initially to evaluate these pot-life extenders Table 3-17 summarizes results of this initial study The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH gave some improvement in propellant castability with no significant effect on propellant burning rate No improvement in propellant castability was observed with use of the Protech 2002 The combination of UOP-36 and DTBH was selected as the pot-life extender system to be used for additional evaluation

DOA was chosen initially as the plasticizer for use with the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant It is one of the most commonly used plasticizers and its low cost is an advantage IDP has a lower viscosity and freezing point than DOA but is more costly than DOA Six smallshyscale propellant batches were made and tested to compare the two plasticizers DOA and IDP under the following three conditions

(1) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level without pot-life extenders

(2) At the 40 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

(3) At the 50 plasticizer in binder level with UOP-36 and DTBH pot-life extenders

Results of the study are summarized in Table 3-18 General conclusions from the study were

(1) The IDP consistently gave better castability than the DOA

(2) Use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH improved castability with both of the plasticizers DOA and IDP

(3) No major improvement in castability was observed by increasing the plasticizer in binder level from 40 to 50 wt

3-47

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Ingredient wt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized 1200 1192 1177 1185

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl-hydroquinone) - 00 004 -

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshyphenylene diamine) -

Protech 2002 (UTC

proprietary antioxidant) -

004

-

004

015

-

015

Aluminum MD-105 1000 1000 1000 1000

Zirconium powder 500 500 500 500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63ttxz 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 gm 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil 3050 3050 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 2850 2850 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm 1000 1000 1000 1000

Total 10000 10000 10000 10000

3-48

Table 3-17 Evaluation of Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPZrAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-63 SB-69 SB-71 SB-72

Formulation No AN-54a AN-59b AN-61a AN-62a

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at

0770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 0323 0295 0282 0269 (500 psia) (0127) (0116) (0111) (0106)

At 690 Ncm 2 0475 0467 0483 0460 (1000 psia) (0187) (0184) (0190) (0181)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 057 066 078 078

aUncastable bpoor castability

CPossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

The effect of plasticizer type on propellant burning rate was not conshyclusively determined from this study Two out of the three cases indicated that the IDP gave slower strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) To resolve this question two additional propellant batches SB-100 and SB-101 were made where the strand burn rate test results could not possibly be biased by the RAM-225 release agent The batches were formulated to have 40 wt plasticizer in binder and to use the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH Results of tests on these two batches are shown in Table 3-19 These results indicated the change from DOA to IDP plasticizer reduced the strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0544 to 0485 cms (0214 to 0191 ins) ( 11)

Based on results of these processing studies the following propellant selections were made for additional evaluation in scale-up batches and motor tests

(1) DOA plasticizer

(2) 40 wt plasticizer in binder level

(3) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH each at the 004 wt level

3-49

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

Formulation No AN-57a AN-58b AN-25 0 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 592 592 720 720 712 712

DTBH (25 dishytertiary butyl hydroquinone) 004 004 - - 004 004

UOP-36 (N-phenylshyN-cyclohexylshyP-phenylene diamine) 004 004 - - 004 004

DOA 600 - 480 - 480 -

IDP - 600 - 480- - 480

Aluminum MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 63 Am 200 200 200 200 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 [Lm 200 200 200 200 200 200

Ammonium nitrate screened ungroundGulf Oil +60 -32 mesh 2700 2700 - - - -

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil - - 3050 3050 2700 2700

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Gulf Oil 3200 3200 2850 2850 3200 3200

Ammonium perchloshyrate hammer mill ground 9 jim - - 1000 1000 1000 1000

3-50

Table 3-18 Evaluation of Plasticizers and Pot-Life Extenders for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants (Continuation 1)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ammonium perabloshyrate fluid energy mill ground 55 pm

Total

Strand Burning Ratesd cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2 (500 to 1000 psia)

aGood castability

SB-67 SB-68 SB-64 SB-70 SB-75 SB-76

AN-57a AN-58b AN-250 AN-60a AN-63a AN-64b

1000 1000 -

10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

0376 0371 0366 0478 0414 0353 (0148) (0146) (0144) (0188) (0163) (0139)

0572 0533 0505 0658 0577 0500 (0225) (0210) (0199) (0259) (0227) (0197)

059 053 047 046 049 048

bExcellent castability 0Poor castability dpossibly biased by RAM-225 mold release

3-51

Table 3-19 Evaluation of Plasticizers for ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-100

-AN-25a

SB-101

AN-65b

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 712 712

DTBH (25 di-tertiary butyl hydroquinone)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-N-cyclohexylshy

P-phenylene diamine)

004

04

004

004

DOA 48o -

IDP - 480

Aluminum IAD-I05 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground 72 pm 200 200

Copper chromite as received 21 pm 200 200

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto 3050 3050

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto 2850 2850

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 9 pm

Total 1000

10000 1000

10000

Strand burning rates cms at 25degC (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

0406 (0160)

0544 (0214)

0419 (0165)

0485 (0191)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

041 022

apoor castability bFair castability

3-52

Results of these additional tests are discussed in sections on scale-up and ballistic evaluation

d Scale-up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Two propellant formulations were selected for evaluation in scale-up batches [946 liters 104 to 113 kg (25gal 230 to 250 lb)] and motor tests Formulation AN-25 was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum and 4 wt ballistic modifier Formulation AN-59 was identical except one-third of the aluminum (5 wt of the propellant formulation) was replaced by zirconium powder Details of the formulations are shownin Table 3-20 Both formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section e The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples from each batch

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rate

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-20 General conclusions from these tests were as follows

(1) The end-of-mix viscosities and pot lives on both batches were excellent There was no degradation of castability with zirconium as suggested by the small-scale batch studies

(2) Strand burning rates were slightly faster at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) for the formulation with zirconium The smallshyscale studies had suggested slower burning rates for formulashytions containing zirconium

(3) Both formulations had burning rateswhich were well below the burning rate goal 0478 and 0513 cms at 690 Ncm2

(0188 and 0202 ins at 1000 psia) versus goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(4) Card gap tests on both formulations were negative at 0 cards and therefore met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Density of the propellant containing zirconium was slightly higher than the propellant containing just aluminum as expected

3-53

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations

Propellant Type Batch Number Formulation Number Batch Size kg (ib)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized)

UOP-36

DTBH

Ammonium dichromate grodnd 63 pm

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Aluminum powder

Zirconium powder

Ammonium nitrate Gulf Oil unground Gulf Oil fine ground

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8 pm

Total

Brookfield apparent viscosities kP at 0C (OF)

Time after curative addition

07 h (end-of-mix) 13 h 34 h

Strand burning rates at 251C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) At 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia)

ANAPAlHTPB SB-73 AN-25

113 (250)

1192

004

004

200

200

1500

-

3050 2850

1000

10000

60 at 55 (130) 73 at 57 (135) 95 at 55 (130)

0257 (0101) 0373 (0147) 0462 (0182) 0478 (0188)

3-54

ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74 AN-59

104 (230)

1192

004

004

200

200

1000

500

3050 2850

1000

10000

41 at-57 (-135) 50 at-57 (-135)

0224 (0088) 0353 (0139) 0437 (0172) 0513 (0292)

Table 3-20 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations (Continuation 1)

Propellant Type ANAPAlHTPB ANAPAlZrHTPB SB-74Batch Number SB-73

Formulation Number AN-25 AN-59 Batch Size kg (ib) 113 (250) 104 (230)

Card Gap Tests 10 negative 10 negative at 0 cards at 0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) 16497 16630 gcm3 (lbin 3 ) (00596) (00601)

JANNAF Uniaxial properties Sm Ncm 2 (psi) 90 (130) 88 (127) era 47 48

Sb Ncm2

eb (psi) 90 (130)

47 88 (127)

48

(6) JANNAF uniaxial properties for both batches were comparable

Maximum stress Sm was in the range of 88 to 90 Ncm2

(127 to 130 psi) and strain at maximum stress em was in

the range of 47 to 48 The low strain values are adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

e Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlHTPB System (3 HCl in

Exhaust) The five candidate alternate propellants listed and defined

in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were all scaled up to processing of 113-kg (250-1b)

batches loaded into BATES motors and test fired The test firings were conducted under sea level conditions using nozzles manufactured

and cut to actual expansion ratios of 716 Both chamber pressure and thrust were measured The tests were conducted at ambient temperature

conditions with propellant charges conditioned to 250C (770F) The

measured sea level Isp swas corrected to a vacuum Isp by simply adding the

back-pressure correction The following equations define the pertinent ballistic parameters

PC _f tEWAT Pc Edttb

J t at 075 Pc init

3-55

-- t EWA T F = dt tF=ftat 075 PC initFtt

Ab gPc KN= - = -

At crp

-- f ta C g At PdtWp g PcKN rp

It Isp ms = shywip

fta itr Fdt

to

PaAeIsp vac ms =Isp MS + -

Wp expended

(ta + tb)2

Figure 3-9 shows the burning rate of the formulation number AN-25 the ANAPAlHTPB propellant system with 10 AP Table 3-21 is a tabulashytion of theBATES motor test data from the test firings of batch number SB-74 of formulation AN-25

f Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAlZrHTPB BATES motors were also loaded and tested with the modified ANAPAlHTPB formulation

containing 5 Zr powder a 15-pm powder The burning rates determined in BATES motors are shown in Fig 3-10 and the ballistic data from the BATES motors tests are tabulated in Table 3-22

3-56

PRESSURE psic 4

102 8 103 2 4 6 102 4 6 1524 i 1 1 1 6

A BATES MOTOR DATA 1016 4

n 0278

E --U 0508 -

2

KN shy

(D 0254 - 1000 1o0 1

z 0203- 800- 88

z

0152 - 600 6

0102 - -400 4

0051 I 200 2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-9 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-73

3-57

2540 2032

1524

102

-

2 4

PRESSURE

6 103

I

psa

2 4 6 104 10

BATES MOTOR DATA 6

1016 n 0277 4

0508 2

O

S0254-0229 0152 -

KN

1000 800600600

I0-866

z

a

6102 - 400 4

0051 I I I 1 200 1 2

69

Fig 3-10

138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for AN-59 ANAPAlZrHTPB Batch No SB-74

3-58

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test data

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

W loaded kg (lb)

Wp expended kg (lb)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-sem2 (lb-s)

E-1453 E-1455

9-15-75 9-23-75

SB-732 SB-733

3376 3109 (1329) (1224)

3393 3119 (1336) (1228)

25225 2525 p(55611) (5567) 25028 2501

(55177) (5513)

9922 9904

3840 3855 (1512) (15178)

811 742

881 797

425 576 (616) (835)

493 634 (715) (919)

459 590 (666) (856)

38844 45878 (56339) (66541)

3-59

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 PropellantTable 3-21 (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s)

p (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia)

r at PC cms

(ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s

(Ib-s)

F (JF dttb)6 N (lb)

It (f F dt) (ta)

N-s (lbrs)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

In vac ins N-skg M

E-1455E-1453

4723240196 (68504)(58300)

61834790 (8968)(69147)

05180483 (0190) (02o4)

534445332

528544739

1432 1424 (4700) (4673)

948953

5174650665 (11633)(11390)

6973461910 (15677)(13918)

53745852257 (120826)(11748)

212844207165 (21704)(21125)

88828820

228132226534 (2310) (23263)

3-60

Table 3-21 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-25 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids Aluminum Oxidizer

88 15 AP-1O AN-59 HMX 0

Run No E-1453 E-1455

Expansion ratio 688 700

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

Test date

Batchcharge number

Nozzle Dt initial cm (in)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in)

Wp loaded kg (ib)

Wp expended kg (ib)

Wt expended

Web thickness cm (in)

-E-1454 E-1456

9-18-75 9-26-75

SB-741 SB-742

3287 3119 (1294) (1228)

3307 3142 (1302) (1237)

2561 2561 (5647) (5646)2534 2528

(5586) (5574)

9891 9872

3835 38298 (1510) (15078)

3-61

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-IO AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

tb (burn time) s

ta (action time) s

Pc initial Ncm2

(psia)

PC maximum Ncm2

(psia)

PC final Ncm2

(psia)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s)

fP dt (ta) N-scm (lb-s)

Pc (f P dttb)

Ncm2 (psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

E-1454 E-1456

769 740

824 784

465 552 (675) (800)

541 620 (785) (899)

540 614 1 (783) (890)

40311 4482C (58467) (6500

41806 46000 (60634) (66718)

5242 6057 (7603) (8785)

0498 0518 (0196) (0204)

478 531

4726 523

13940 14319 (45736) (46977)

928 9527

3-62

Table 3-22 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-59 Propellant (Continuation 2)

Solids 88 Aluminum 10 Al amp 5 Zr Oxidizer AP-10 AN-59 HMX 0

Run No

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb)N (lb)

it (fF dt) (ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s-)

Isp efficiency

lsi vac ms N-skg(s22055

Expansion ratio

E-1454 E-1456

50189 50576 (11283) (11370)

6526 6835 (1467) (15365)

52044 52044 (11700) (11770)

20319 20447 (2072) (2085)

8598 865

22016

(2249) (2245)

696 694

3-63

8 ANAPAlHTPB Propellant (gt3 Wt HCl in Exhaust)

The propellant development work accomplished on the basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant to this point indicated that the burn rate goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with the constraint of lt3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was probably not achievable Development work was continued on this propellant with the HC1 constraint removed but held to a minimum This section discusses that propellant development effort

a Burning Rate Studies Four small-scale batches (1500 g) were made varying the FEM AP (fluid energy mill-ground ammonium perchlorate) level from 10 to 30 wt The ballistic modifier system using 2 wt ground AD and 2 wt CU-0202 P was used End-of-mix viscosities pot life and cured strand burning rates were measured on each batch Objective of this work was to determine what FEM AP level was needed

to achieve the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) The formulations and test results are shown in Table 3-23and Fig 3-11 These results lead to the following conclusions

(1) The strand burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) is achievable using 18 wt FEM AP A motor burning rate of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) may require a slightly higher FEM AP level

(2) End-of-mix viscosities werein the range of 88 to152 kP at 520C (125 0 F) for FEM AP levels ranging from 10 to 20 wt Casting lives for these batches were 2_35 h at

520C (125 0F)

(3) Using FEM AP and increasing the AP level from 10wt to 18-wt increases HCI in the exhaust from 29 to =50

Thermoballistic calculations indicated that reducing the ballistic modifier level to 2 wt by elimination of the AD increased theoretical Isp by 196 N-skg (2 s) Elimination of the AD was desirable from other considerations Studies had shown that it crosslinks the R-45 prepolymer (probably through the double bond) and degrades propellant castability and physical properties Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made varying the FEM AP level over the range of 15 to 25 wt level Only 2 wt as received CU-0202 P was used as ballistic modifier End-of-mix viscosities and-cured strand burning rates were measured

Results of this study are shown in Table 3-24 and Fig 3-11 General conclusions from this work were

(1) Approximately 20 wt FEM AP is required to meet the burning rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosities were in the range of 18 to 19 kP at 520C (1250F)

3-64

1 1 0902286

0802032 - 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 200

AD + 200 CU-0202 P

KZ 1778 690 Ncm2 (1000 psa) -070 E 200CU-0202 P

0 -060 O 1524

lt I- 345 Ncm

2 (500 psa) 200 AD 200CU-0202 P

0501270

z z

040 D2 1016 co

z z

0762- 030n

345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 200 CU-0202 P 0200508 -

I I 0100254 I I 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

FEM AP LEVEL wt

Fig 3-11 Strand Burning Rates vs FEM AP Level ANAPAlHTPB Propellants

3-65

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder 40 DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Ammonium dichromate hammer mill ground (72 im)

Copper chromite as received (21 1im)

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto unground

Ammonium nitrate Monsanto fine grind

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy ground (63 tim)

SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

3050 3050 3050 -3050

2850 2350 1850 850

1000 1500 2000 3000

Table 3-23 ANAPAlHTPB Formulations-AP Level Variations (4 Wt Ballistic Modifier) (Continuation 1)

Batch No SB-118 SB-119 SB-120 SB-121

Formulation No AN-25A AN-66 AN-67 AN-68

Brookfield Viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) kPh after CA

End-of-mix -152067 112062 88038 2806 LU

Pot life 18417 26418 22414 shy25627 3228 27224 3237 4038 40834

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770 F)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0424 (0167) 0536 (0211) 0739 (0291) 1461 (0575) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0528 (0208) 0693 (0273) 1067 (0420) 2136 (0841)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 - 038 051 052

CA = curative addition

Table 3-24 Evaluation of AP Level for ANAPA1HTPB Propellant (2 Wt Ballistip Modifier)

Batch No Formulation No

Ingredientswt

HTPB binder 40 wt DOA plasticized

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate fine ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate

FEM ground 63 Pm

Brookfield End-of-Mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F)

Strand Burning Rates cms at 250C (ins at 770F)

At 345 Ncm2

(500psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-135 AN-69

1200

1500

200

3050

2550

1500

10000

19

0437 (0172)

0660 (0260)

058

SB-136 SB-137 AN-70 AN-71

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

3050 3050

1550 2050

2500 2000

10000 10006

18

0884 (0348) 0615 (0242)

0242 (0489) 0930 (0366)

051 060

3-68

Based on these results formulation AN-71 with 2 wt as received CUshy0202 P and 20 wt FEM AP was selected for additional evaluation with

a scale-up batch and motor tests

b Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation Formulation AN-71 was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch [946 liter (25 gal) 113 kg (250 lb)] and motor tests It was an ANAPAlHTPB propellant with 88 wt total solids 15 wt aluminum 20 wt FEM AP and 2 wt ballistic modifier Details of the formulation are shownin Table 3-25 Formulation AN-71 was successfully mixed in the 946-liter (25-gal) mixer and loaded into BATES motors and small-scale samples The BATES motors were successfully tested and results are discussed in Section III-H-8-c and d Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests

were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

Results of these tests are also summarized in Table 3-25 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The propellant end-of-mix viscosity was 28 kP at 530C (127degF) which is high but acceptable Pot life was about 2 hours

(2) The strand burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) was 0922 cms (0363 ins) which met the goal of 089 cms at

690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(3) Strand pressure exponent was 061 Motor pressure exponents are typically lower than strand pressure exponents The generally high pressure exponent is associated with the low ballistic modifier level (2 wt CU-0202 P) and the

fine (FEM) AP

(4) Card gap tests were negative at 0 cards Therefore they met requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) The propellant density and JANNAF uniaxial properties obtained were typical of properties obtainedwith the ANAPAlHTPB propellant Measured density was 16497 gcm3 at 250C (00596 lbin3 at 770 F) Sm was 89 Ncm2 (129 psi) with an em of 37 The low strain values were adequate for propellant ballistic development but would probably have to be improved for use in the Shuttle booster motors

3-69

Table 3-25 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulation

ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Type Batch Number SB-140 Formulation No AN-71

113 kg (250 lb)Batch Size

Formulation wt

HTPB binder (40 wt DOA plasticized) 1192 004UOP-36 004DTBH

Copper Chromite as received 21 Am 200 Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 Ammonium nitrate

Monsanto unground 3050 Monsanto fine ground 2050

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground 63 pm 2000

Total 10000

Brookfield Apparent Viscosities kP at 0C (OF) Time after curative addition

09 h (end-of-mix) 28 at 53 (127) 19 h 52 at 52 (125) 29 h 73 at 52 (125)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins) At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) 0445 (0175) At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) 0612 (0241) At 517 Ncm2 (750 psia) 0785 (0309) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 0922 (0363)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 061 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests Negative at

0 cards

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770F) gcm3 (lbin 3) 16497 (00596)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties Sm Ncm2 (psi) 89 (129) em 37

89 (129)Sb Ncm2 (psi)eb 37

3-70

c Ballistic Evaluation ANAPAIHTPB (gt3 HCI in Exhaust)

As has been discussed the effects on this candidate propellant system

resulting from increasing the AP content were studied A formulation

with 20 AP and burning rate modifier reduced to 2 met the burning The burningrate and Isp goal This formulation is identified as AN-71

rates and measured Isp are shown in Fig 3-12 and Table 3-26 respectively

d Summary One ANAPAlHTPB propellant formulation was

developed that conformed to the program constraints for lt3 wt HCl

in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards

classification This formulation AN-25 had a motor burning rate

-of only 053 cms at 690 Ncm2 (021 ins at 1000 psia) and a

= 716 of only 2285 N-skg (233 s) A maximumdelivered vacuum Ip E

strand burning rate of only 064 cms at 690 Ncm2 (025 ins at

1000 psia) (unbiased by RAM-225 release agent) was achieved within

the program constraints with a small-scale batch using fluid energy

Since the development work indicated thatmillground (55 [m) AP

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1300 psia)

was probably not achievable with the constraint of _3 wt HI in the

propellant exhaust development work was continued with this constraint

removed but held to a minimum Formulation AN-71 was developed to

This formulation used only 200 meet the program goals on that basis

wt copper chromite as ballistic modifier and 2000 wt fluid energy

It had a motor burning rate of 097 cms atmill ground (63 gim) AP 1000 psia) and a delivered vacuum I E = 716690 Ncm2 (038 ins at

of 2403 N-skg (245 s) Table 3-27 summarizes and compares te properties

of these two formulations versus the program goals

The following summarizes the status of the ANAPAlHTPB propellant

development

(1) The basic ANAPA1HTPB propellat ip the second most

promising candidate of the three basic propellants

to good(2) Demonstrated that a few of AP is essential

aluminum combustion

of AP is required to meet(3) Demonstrated that more than 10

the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins

at 1000 psia)

(4) Formulation AN-71 with 20 wt AP met the program goals for

burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [097 cms (038 ins)

achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] and delivered

= 716 [2403 N-skg (245 s) achieved versusvacuum Is at E

goal of 21403 N-skg (245 s)] but did not meet the goal

for pressure exponent (048 achieved versus goal of K042)

It conformed to the constraint for a Class 2 propellant

but did not conform to the constraint for lt_3 wt HUl in

the propellant exhaust

3-71

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellent

Solids 88 Alumindm 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX ---

Run No E-1484

Test Date 6-10-76

BatchChg No SB-1401

Nozzle Dt init cm (in) 48636 (19148)

Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 46380 (1826)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3025 (6670)

Wp expended kg(ib) 3025 (6668)

Wt expended 9997

Web thickness cm (in) 4648 (1830)

tb s 698

ta s 730

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 313 (454)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 380 (551)

Pc final Ncm 2 (psia) 317 (460)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24506 (355435)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 24952 (3619)

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 351 (509) (psia)

r at cCms (ins) 0665 (0262)

KN initial 2103

KN average 21987

C ms (fts) 14604 (47914)

C efficiency 972

3-72

-E-1491

6-25-76

SB-1402

48636 (19148)

46355 (1825)

3016 (6650)

3003 (6621)

9956

4630 (1823)

654

705

317 (460)

421 (610)

238 (345)

24525 (355710)

24948 (36184)

3750 (5439)

0709 (0279)

2103

-21998

14638 (48026)

975

Table 3-26 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary AN-71 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88 Aluminum 15 Oxidizer AP 20 AN 510 HMX --shy

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 6248797 (14o4786) 6281131 (1412055)

F (fF dttb) N (lb) 895249 (20126) 960415 (21591)

it (fF dt for ta) 6356996 (142911) 6382382(1434817)

N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 210117 (21426) 215588 (21576)

Isp efficiency 9226 9256

Isp vac ms (corr) 240214 (24495) 241008 (24576)

Expansion ratio 716 726

(5) Formulation AN-25 with 10 wt AP met the program goal for presshysure exponent (028 achieved versus goal of lt042) but did not

meet the goals for burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) [053 cms (021 ins) achieved versus goal of 089 cms (035 ins)] dr for delivered vacuum I eE = 716 [2285 N-skg (233 s) achieved versus goal of gt2403 N-skg (245 s)] It conformed to the constraints for a Class 2 propellant and gt3 wt hCl in the propellant exhaust

(6) Demonstrated good castability and a pot life greater than

34 hours for formulation AN-25

(7) Demonstrated acceptable castability for formulation AN-71

(8) Successfully loaded and test fired 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with both formulations

(9) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

9 ANHMXAIHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work accomplished in the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined pershyformance goals within the constraints specified One of the advantages of this basic propellant is that it contains no AP and consequently generates no HCl in the exhaust However typical formulations using

3-73

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104

1524 I 1 1 6

1016 -A BATES MOTOR DATA 4

0 5x 10 MOTOR DATA 0508 - 2

E U

n =048 KN

0254 1-- 000 10 o 0203 800-6L 8

Z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0124 - 400 4 D

0051 200 2

I 10-20025 I1 I I

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

Ncm 2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-12 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANAPAlHTPB Batch No SB-140

3-74

Table 3-27 ANAPAlHTPBPropellant Achieved Properties vs Goals

Achieved Value

SB-140SB-73 AN-71AN-25-Alternate Propellant

Goal (10 wt- AP) (20 wt AP)Property

BATES motor Burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

089 (035) 053 (021) 097 (038)acms (ins)

BATES motor lt042 028pressure exponent

-Delivered vacuum sn

E 716 N-skg (s) 2403 (2245) 2285 (233) 2403 (245)

lt3 30 631C1 in exhaust

Meets card gap yes Required yesrequirement for Class 2 (negative (negative

at 0 cards)at 0 cards)

a45-kg (10-1b) motor test data

7) about to 20 wt HMX have theoretical Isp values

(vacuum and E 15 196 N-skg (2 s) less than comparable ANHNXAP(10)AlHTPB

formulations

Reduction in program funds and scope limited development effort on

this basic propellant to only four exploratory mixes

Two 10-g hand mixes one uncured and one a Safety Tests cured were made of formulations with 20 wt Class

A HMX to initially -Impact

check material compatibility and propellant safety properties

tests (DSC-differential scanning calorimeter) were made on both mixes

The formulations and results of the safety tests are shown in Table 3-28

For comparison purposes these same safety tests were made on propellant

samples of the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-B-1123) Table 3-29

compares the safety properties of the candidate ANHMXAlHTPB formulation

AN-52 with the safety properties of PBAN baseline formulation TP-H-1123

These tests indicated

3-75

Table 3-28 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAlHTPB Propellant (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No

Formulation No

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45 Alrosperse Premix DOA (4o)

Aluminum Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm Copper chromite as received Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 pm HMX Type II Class A

(DOA coated) Ammonium nitrate ground Ammonium nitrate unground

(+60 -32 mesh screened fraction) IPDI

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight 0 fire 50 fire

Electrostatic Sensitivity J

Thermal Stability (DSC - 10OCmin heating rate)

SB-59 SB-60

AN-51 (uncured) AN-52

1108 1108

1500 1500 200 200 200 200 7

2020 2020 3410 3410

1500 1500 none shy 062 9938 10000

4318 (17 )a 4572 (18) 4826 (19 )a 508 (20)

gt128 gt128

No exotherm No exotherm over tempera- over temperashyture range 21 ture range 21 to 1490c (70 to 1490c (70

to 3000 F) to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

3-76

Table 3-29 Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate ANHMXAiHTPB Propellant Formulations vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-52)

Formulation TP-H-1123 (PBAN Baseline)

Batch No SB-77

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400

HTPB binder

Aluminum 1600

Ballistic modifiers 040

Ammonium perchlorate 6960

Ammonium nitrate

HMX Type II Class A

Impact sensitivity cm (in) for 18 kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4318 (18) 50 fire 4953 (195)

Electrostatic sensitivity J gt128

Thermal stability (DSC - 100 Cmin heating rate) No exotherm

over temperature range 21 to -1490c (70tto 3000F)

DSC = Differential scanning calorimeter

AN-52

SB-60

1190

1500

400

4910

2000

4572 (18) 508 (20)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000F)

3-77

(1) Formulation AN-52 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as the current PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123)

(2) DSC data suggested that thermal stability of the 20 wt HMX propellant and gross material compatibility over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 300 0F) were adequate

(3) Formulations with up to 20 wt HMX could be safely processed inthe JPL ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

b Burning Rate Studies Two small-scale batches (1000 g) were made varying the level of Class A HMX from 1500 to 2000 wt Strand burn rate tests were made on cured propellant from both batches The formulations and results of strand burn rate tests are shown in Table 3-30 Strand burning rates increased from 0414 to 0450 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0163 to 0177 ins at 1000 psia) with the 1500 to 2000 wt increase in Class A HMX while the strand pressure exponent remained constant at 042 Although the strand pressure exponent met the performance goal of lt042 the burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)were well below the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) These very slow burn rates suggest that the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant may not be a viable candidate for achieving program goals

c Hazard Classification Card gap samples were cast cured and tested from the two batches shownin Table 3-30 Results of the card gap tests indicated positive tests at 35 and 70 cards on both batches Therefore these formulations with 15 and 20 wt Class A HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant hazard classification one of the major constraints Propellant development work on the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant was terminated at this point

d Summary The following summarizes the status of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant development

(1) Demonstrated that 1500 and 2000 wt_ Class A HMX resulted in Class 7 propellants

(2) Achieved a strand burning rate of 0450 cms (0177 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and a strand pressure exponent of 042 with a formulation containing 2000 wt Class A HMX

(3) Demonstrated good castability of the basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant

(4) Discontinued development of this basic propellant as a result of reduction in funds

3-78

Table 3-30 ANHM4XHTPB Formulations (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

SB-82A (HMX)

ANH-1

SB-81

ANH-1

(HMX)

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class A 1500 2000

Ammonium nitrate 5400 4900

Card gap tests

0 cards 35 cards 70 cards

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

1 positive 2 positive

0-310 (0122) 0414 (0163)

042

1 positive 2 positive

0340 (0134) 0450 (0177)

042

3-79

10 ANBMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

This section discusses the propellant development work-accompshylished on the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant to achieve the defined performance goals within the constraints specified The constraint of lt_3 wt HCI in the propellant exhaust was accomplished by limiting the AP level in the formulation to10 wt The constraint of a Class 2 propellant hazard classification was primarily accomplished by limiting the HMX Class (particle size) and level to meet the card gap requireshyments for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards)

a Safety Tests Safety tests were performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes containing 20 wt Class A HMX to check material compatishybility and safety properties The formulations and the test results are shown in Table 3-31 As in the case of the ANHMXAlHTPB propellant these safety tests results were compared to similar safety test results on the PBAN baseline propellant (TP-H-1123) Table 3-32 shows this comparison General conclusions were

(1) Formulation AN-50 had essentially the same sensitivity to impact and electrostatic discharge as TP-H-1123

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F) as determined by the DSC

(3) Formulations with-up to 20 wt HMX could besafely proshycessed in the JPL-ETS facilities as per established standard operating procedures

Safety tests were also performed on samples from 10-g hand mixes to check material capability and propellant safety properties when the potshylife extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were incorporated into ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellants Selected level for both UOP-36 and DTBH was 004 wt Impact sensitivity electrostatic sensitivity and thermal stability (DSC) tests were made on samples from the mix with the pot-life extendshyers SB-127 and on samples from a control mix without the pot-life extenders SB-126 The formulations and test results were shown in Table 3-33 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) The mix with the pot-life extenders had essentially the same impact sensitivity and electrostatic sensitivity as the control mix

(2) Thermal stability and gross material compatibility were adequate over the temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000 F) (DSC)

b Burning Rate Studies Six small-scale batches were made varying HMX particle size at two sizes Class A ( 149 lm) and Class E (15 to 20 gim) and HMX level at three levels 10 15 and 20 wt Objective of this study was to determine the effects of HMX particle

3-80

Table 3-31 Summary of Propellant Safety Tests (10-g hand mixes)

Batch No SB-57 (uncured)

Formulation No AN-49

Formulation (parts by weight)

R-45

Alrosperse Premix 1108

DOA (40)

Aluminum 1500

Ammonium dichromate ground 6 pm 200

Copper chromite as received 200

Ammonium perchlorate ground 9 Jm 1000

HMX Type II Class A (1 DOA coated) 2020

Ammonium nitrate ground 3910

IPDI none

9938

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for

18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 Fire 381 (15)a

50 Fire 43-18 (17 )a

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over (DSC at 10degCmin heating temperature range rate) 21 to 1490C

(70 to 3000 F)

SB-58

AN-50

1108

1500

200

200

1000

2020

3910

062

10000

5334 (21)

5715 (225)

gt128

No exotherm over temperature range 21 to 1490C (70 to 3000 F)

aMixes very dry Impact tests may be biased by voids in samples

3-81

Table 3-32 -Comparison of Safety Properties - Candidate Alternate--ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Formulation vs Baseline (PBAN) Formulation (AN-50)

Formulation TP-H-1123 AN-50

(PANbaseline)

Batch Number SB-77 SB-58

Ingredients wt

PBAN binder 1400 ---

HTPB binder --- 1190

Aluminum 1600 1500

Ballistic modifiers 040 400

Ammonium perchlorate 6960 1000

Ammonium nitrate --- 3910

HMX Type II Class A --- 2000

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight

0 fire 4572 (18) 5334 (21)

50 fire 4953 (195) 5715 (225)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability (DSC at 100Cmin heating No exotherm over No exotherm-over rate) temperature rangeru temperature range

21 to 1490C 21 to 149 0 Cshy(70 to 3000 F) (70 to 3000 F)

size and level on propellant hazard classification (card gap tests) strand burningrates and relative castability Tests were performed on- samples from each of these batches and the results are summarized in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 alongwith-the formulations Results of the card gap tests and relative castability are discussed in the hazards classification and processing sections respectively The strand burn- ing rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) were plotted versus HMX level in Fig 3-13 forthe two different HMXparticle sizes Class A and Class E Although the strand burning rates are biased to faster values by the

3-82

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests

Formulations for 10-g Hand Mixes

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate attritor ground (44 pm)

Copper chromite attritor

ground (17 Pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (63 gm)

UOP-36 (N-phenyl-Nshycyclohexyl-P-phenylene diamine)

DTBH (ditertiary butyl hydroquinone)

Safety Tests (Cured Propellant)

Impact Sensitivity cm (in) for 18-kg (4-1b) weight)

0 Fire

50 Fire

SB-126 SB-127

ANH-16A (Control) ANH-30

1200 1192

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1300 1300

100 1000

004

0-04

10000 10000

43 (17) 57 (19)

52 (205) 51 (20)

3-83

Table 3-33 UOP-36 and DTBH in ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Safety Tests (Continuation 1)

Electrostatic Sensitivity J gt128 gt128

Thermal Stability No exotherm over No exotherm over

(DSC at 10degCmin heating rate)

temperature range 21 to 1490 C (70 to 3000F)

temperature range 21 to 149 0C (70 to 3000F)

RAM-225 release agent the relative ranking and trends are believed to be valid General conclusions from these rankings and trends are as follows

(1) The fine particle size HMX Class E (15-20 pm) gave signifishycantly faster burning rates than the coarse Class A (=149 pm) HMX

(2) The fine particle size HMX Class E gave lower pressure exponent than the coarse Class E HMX

(3) Strand burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) increased significantly with HMX level to about 15 wt and tended to level in the 15 to 20 wt range

From burning rate considerations the fine size Class E HMX was preferred because it gave faster burning rates at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and lower pressure exponents Formulation ANH-5A [Batch SB-85A(HMX)] was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed in Sections III-H-10-f and III-H-10-g on Scale-up and Ballistic Evaluation

Cured propellant strands to this point in the program had been prepared by casting the uncured propellant into molds which formed individual strands and which had been coated with RAM-225 release agent Test data from the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings(from Batch SB-89 (first scale-up batch) revealed a large discrepancy between strand burn rates and the 45-kg (10-1b) motor burn rates An investigation of this discrepshyancy revealed that the RAM-225 was the cause Strands were prepared in5 the following three ways and tested for comparison

(1) Strands cured in the RAM-225 release molds and restricted

(2) Strands cut from a solid block of cured propellant and restricted

(3) Strands cut from a block of cured propellant then given light spray coat of RAM-225 dried in 710 C (1600F) oven then restricted

3-84

Table 3-34 ANH-MXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class A

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchlorate

ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates2

at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500to 1000 psia)

SB-88

ANH-8

1200

1500

200

200

1000

4900

1000

2 negative

1 negative

0480(0189)a

6 65 (0 2 62 )a0

048

SB-83 SB-84

ANH-3 NH-4

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1500 2000

4400 3900

1000 1000

-

1 positive 1 positive

2 positive 2 positive

0 622 (0 245 )a 05 41(02 13 )a

0826 (0 32 5)a 0 7 47 (02 94 )a

041 047

3-85

Table 3-34 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation (Class A HMX) (Continuation 1)

Shore A Hardness (3 s) 81 80 82

Relative Castability Good Good Good

aStrands were cast into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

Results of the tests are summarized in Table 3-36 and Fig 3-14 Very good agreement was obtained between the burn rate of strands cured in the RAM-225 release mold and strands cut from a cured block of propelshy

lant and then sprayed with RAM-225 However both these sets of burn

rates were erroneously fast compared to the 5 x 10 motor burn rates In contrast the strand burn rates obtained from cut strands which were

not treated with RAM-225 were much slower and agreed fairly well with motor data

A brief investigation was made to determine the composition of RAM-225 and whether it could be used as an improved ballistic modifier in the propellant formulation Chemical analysis of RAM-225 indicated

that it is a high molecular weight silicone oil in the solvents isopropashynol and heptane Two 38-liter (1-gal) batches of propellant were made with 015 wt dimethyl silicone (1000 cS) One batch had 400 wt mixed ballistic modifiers (ammonium dichromate and copper chromite) and

the other batch had 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier Both batches made with the 015 wt dimethyl silicone showed signs of viscosity buildup even before curative addition The batch with the 200 wt mixed ballistic modifier became too viscous to process to completion Tests results on the successfully completed batch with 015 wt dimethshyyl silicon [Batch SB-107 (HMX)] are shown in Table 3-37 Test results from Batch SB-108 (HMX) are also included in this table for comparative purposes General conclusions from these tests are as follows

(1) No significant changes in strand burning rates were observed due to addition of 015 wt dimethyl silicone

(2) The dimethyl silicone caused rapid propellant viscosity buildup even before curative addition and therefore the material appears impractical from propellant processing considerations

A series of six small-scale (1000 g) batches was made with the specific objectives of increasing propellant burn rate improving castashybility and improving burn rate reproducibility US Agri-Chemicals (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent was used for all six batches The following variables were evaluated

3-86

0

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations --HMX Level Variation (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB Binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate (Gulf Oil without anticaking agent)

Ammonium perchloshyrate ground

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

32 cards

35 cards

70 cards

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770 F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-87 SB-85A SB-86

ANH-7 ANH-5A ANH-6

1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500

200 200 200

200 200 200

1000 1500 2000

4900 4400 3900

1000 1000 1000

2 neg -

1 neg

I neg 2 neg 1 pos

1 pos

(500 psia) 0 767 (0 302 )a 0 930 (0 366 )a 0912(0359)a

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0970(0382)a 1105 (0 43 5 )a 1 128 (0444 )a

Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm 2

(500to 1000 psia) 033 024 031

3-87

Table 3-35 ANHMXAPAIHTPB Formulations - HMX Level Variation

(Class E HMX) (Continuation 1)

89 88Shore A Hardness (3 s) 90

Relative Castability Fair Fair Marginal

aStrands were east into a mold with RAM-225 release agent This

release agent caused strands to show erroneously fast burn rates

(1) Ammonium nitrate particle size Replacement of part or all of the large unground prills by a coarse-ground ammor nitrate

(2) Plasticizer type Replacement of DOA (dioctyl adipate) by IDP (isodecyl pelargonate)

Relative castability and strand burn rates were measured on each batch Results of this study are summarized in Tables 3-38 and 3-39 and Fig 3-15 General conclusions regarding propellant burn rates from the study were as follows

(1) Replacement of the very large unground ammonium nitrate prills by coarsely ground ammonium nitrate reduced propelshy

lant burning rate

(2) Replacement of DOA by IDP slightly reduced propellant burnshying rate (Q2)

(3) Strand pressure exponents were typically 036 or less well within the goal of lt042

(4) The US Agri-Chemical (US Steel) ammonium nitrate with anticaking agent handled without caking and had less tendshyency to size reduce during handling tand mixing These

factors should improve propellant burn rate reproducibility

The reduction in burn rate by replacement of unground prills with coarseshyly ground AN was unexpected and inconsistent with usual solid propellant experience Usually propellant burn rate increases with increasing fractions of ground oxidizer The mechanism for this unusual response has not been identified to date Formulation ANH-12 Batch SB-94 (HMX)

had the fastest burn rate 0836 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0329 ins at 1000 psia) consistent with acceptable castability Therefore it was selected for additional evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of replacing bamer mill ground AP with the finer fluid energy mill (FEM) ground AP on propellant properties Micromerograph analysis

3-88

270I 050-K STRAND BURN RATES BIASED BY RAM-225 MOLD RELEASE

CLASSE HMXZ 1016 040 0 0ashy10

7CLASS AHMX 0762 - 030 Z

z nD 2

z - -

Ce 0508 -020 1 F-I) 0 5 10 15 20

HMX wt

Fig 3-13 Strand Burn Rate vs Weight Percent HMX for ANHMXAPA1HTPB Propellant

3-89

Table 3-36 Investigation of RAM-225 Release Agent Burning Rates of Propellant Batch No SB-89 (HMX)

Strand Burning Rate cms at 250 C (ins at 770F)

Strands cured Strands cut 5 x 10 motor Strands cut in RAM-225 from cured firings from cured

Pressure released mold block of block of Ncm 2 (psia) propellant propellant

sprayed with RAMshy225 dried and tested

690 (1000) 0991 (0390) 0721 (0284) 0660 (0260) 0983 (0387)

517 (750) 0876 (0345) - 0662 (0245)

345 (500) 0765 (0301) 0599 (0236) 0549 (0216) 0785 (0309)

172 (250) 0572 (0225) - 0457 (0180)

Pressure 042 027 028 033 exponent

indicated that the fluid energy mill AP had a mass median diameter of 63 Am compared to 90 pm for typical hammer mill ground AP Batch SB-110 (HMX) was made using 1700 wt Class E HMX and 1000 wt of the FEM AP A reference batch SB-98 (HMX) was made using the hammer mill ground AP Strand burn rates and relative castability were detershy

mined on both of the batches Results are shown in Table 3-40 and Fig 3-16

(1) Replacement of the hammer mill ground (9 pm) AP by the FEM ground (63 pm) AP increased strandburn rate to 0950 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0374 ins at 1000 psia) This exceeds the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm 2 (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(2) Strand pressure exponent appeared to be reduced with use of the FEM ground AP

Two small-scale batches (1500 g) were made to evaluate the effect

of finer ballistic modifier particle size on propellant properties As discussed in the ANAPHTPB propellant development section an attritor mill was used to size reduce the ballistic modifiers ammonium dichroshymate and copper chromite Batch SB-117 (HMX) was made using 200 wt

3-90

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPBbinder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper Chromite

Dimethyl silicone

(1000 cS)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground US Steel with anti-caking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground US Steel with antishycaking agent

Monsanto phase stabilized

Ammonium perchlorate ground

SB-l08 (Reference)

AN-20

1200

1500

200

200

-

2000

-

2900

-

1000

1000

SB-107 SB-109

ANH-19 ANH-21

1185 1185

1500 1500

200 100

200 100

015 015

2000 2000

2900 3100

-

1000 1000

- -

1000 1000

3-91

Table 3-37 ANHMXAPHTPB Formulations -Ballistic Modifier Type and Level Variation (Continuation 1)

Relative Castability Excellent Uncastable Mix could not castability be completed

cured up in mix bowl

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia) 0665 (0262) 0673 (0265) -

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia) 0818 (0322) 0808 (0318) -

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia) 030 026

Card gap tests

35 cards

55 cards

69 cards 3 positive 3 positive

attritor ground (17 pm) copper chromite 1700 wt Class E HMX and FEM ground (63 pm) AP No ammonium dichromate was used in this batch as a part of the overall effort to achieve the burning rate goal 089

cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with improved performance (Isc)castability and physical properties Reference Batch SB-116 (AN ) was made using as received (21 pm) copper chromite Table 3-41 summarizes results of Brookfield end-of-mix visosity and strand burn rate tests on these two batches These results led to the following conclusions

(1) In an IDP plasticized formulation using only 200 wt CU-0202 P as ballistic modifier coarse ground AN and 63 Im FEM ground AP reducing the CU-0202 P particle size from 21 to 17 m increased the strand burn rate at 690

Ncm2 (1000 psia) from 0724 to 0737 cms (0285 to 0290 ins) t_2

(2) No significant change in strand pressure exponent was observed

(3) Castability was good for both batches

3-92

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103

25401 0 1 100

2032 - A CURED IN RAM-225 RELEASED STRAND MOLD - 8

B STRAND CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK

1524- BURNED WITHOUT TREATMENT 6

EU C STRANDS CUT FROM A PROPELLANT BLOCK SPRAYED WITH RAM-225 DRIED THEN BURNED ui

1016- 4 0C oD

z 7I- 0 z z z

CA _B

o 0o

z z0508 2

V)

BATCH No SB-89 (HMX)

FOMULATION ANH-9

0254 I I i I 10-1 69 103 138- 207 345 690

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Fig 3-14 Crawford Bomb Burning Rates Batch No SB-89 (IIX) Formulation ANH-9

3-93

Table 3-38 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size

Variation (Class E HMX - DOA Plasticizer)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 DOA plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with antishycaking coating)

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with

anticaking coating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative castability

Strand burning rates

at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(at 1000 psia)

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

SB-90 SB-91 SB-93 SB-95

ANH-9 ANH-10 ANH-11 ANH-13

1200 1200 1200 1200

1500 1500 1500 1500

200 200 200 200

200 200 200 200

1500 1500 1500 1500

4400 2900 1760

- 1500 2640 4400

_

1000 1000 1000 1000

Uncastable Uncastable Marginally Castable castable

- 0678 0678 0516 (0 267 )a (0234)a (0 2 0 3 )a

0953 0859 0859 0665 -(0 3 7 5 )a (0 3 3 8 )a (0 299)a (0 2 6 2 )a

034 035 036

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were cut

from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased

by RAM-225 release agent

3-94

Table 3-39 ANHMXAPA1HTPB Formulations - AN Particle Size Variation (Class E HMX - IDP Plasticizer)

Batch No SB-94 SB-96

Formulation No ANH-12 ANH-14

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 IDP plasticizer) 1200 1200

Aluminum 1500 1500

Ammonium diohromate ground 200 200

Copper chromite 200 200

HMX Class E 1500 1500

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 2900

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground (US Steel with anticaking coating) 1500 4400

Ammonium perchlorate ground 1000 1000

Relative Castability Good castability

Excellent castability

Strand burning rates at 250 C (770F) cms (ins)a

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

-

0836 (0 329 )a

0518 (0 204 )a

0655 (0258) a

Pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

apropellant was cast into bulk propellant sample and strands were

cut from bulk sample into final form Strand burn rates are not biased by RAM-225 release agent

3-95

1016 1 040

eE aQCNO

DOA PLASTICIZER

z CI-o 100

lt 0762 030 - I--

IDP PLASTICIZER

z Z

a a z z

--- 1-shy

0508 I-I I I20

cn

0 20 40 60 80 100 FRACTION OF COARSE GROUND AN wt

Fig 3-15 Strand Burn Rates vs Fraction AN Coarse Ground ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant US Steel AN

3-96

C

Table 3-40 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations -AP Particle Size Variation (HMX)

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

Ammonium perchloriate hammer mill ground (Micromerograph 50 wt point 9 gim)

Ammonium perchlorate fluid energy mill ground (Mieromerograph 50 wt point 63 pm)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 45 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Relative Castability

3-97

SB-98 ANH-16 Reference

1200

1500

200

200 shy

1700

2700

1500

1000

0653 (0257)

0810 (0319)

030

Good

castability

SB-110 ANH-16

1200

1500

200

200

1700

2700

1500

-

1000

0843 (0332)

0950 (0374)

017

Good castability

slightly more viscous than SB-98 (HMX)

1270 1 050

K K

CN4 E 0

1016 040 0

o 0

100

BURN RATE GOAL

z z

= 0762 - 030 D

z z

05081 I I I I 020 40 50 60 70- 80 90 100t

AP PARTICLE SIZE (MICROMEROGRAPH 50 wt POINT) gm

Fig 3-16i Strand Burn Rates vs AP Particle Size ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

3-98

Table 3-41 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Formulations - Ballistic Modifier Particle Size Variation

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum

Copper chromite

As received (21 pm)

Attritor ground (17 pm)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground

Total

Relative castability

Brookfield end-of-mix viscosity kP at 520C (125 0F) Strand burning rates at 250C

(770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2 (500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand pressure exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

3-99

SB-116 (Reference) SB-117

ANH-24A ANH-24B

1200 1200

1500 1500

200

- 200

1700 1700

2900 2900

1500 1500

1000 1000

10000 10000

Good Good

168 136

0610 (0240) 0627 (0247)

0724 (0285) 0737 (0290)

028 024

As was observed with the ANAPAIHTPB propellant reduction of the ballistic modifier particle size did not prove to be an effective approach to increasing burn rates

Three small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better optimize the ballistic modifier system for the basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB propelshylant Previous to this point in the program the mixed ballisticmodifishyer system of 200 wt ground ammonium dichromate (AD) with 200 wt copper chromite (CU-0202 P) was used It was desirable to reduce the total ballistic modifier level to less than 400 wt and recover some shy

performance (II delivered) Elimination of AD was also desirable because of its tendency to crosslink the R-45 prepolymer with subsequent degradation of propellant castability and physical properties Batches SB-132 (HMX) and SB-138 (HMX) were made using only as-receivedCU-0202 P as the ballistic modifier at the 200 wt and 300 wt levels respecshytively The objective of testing these two batches was to determine whether the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm

2

(1000 psia) could be achieved by using only CU-0202 P at levels less than 400 wt Brookfield end-of-mix and strandburning rates were measured on both batches Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-42 and they indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate achieved with 300 wt as-received CU-0202 P was 6nly 0810 cms (0319 ins) at 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

(2) Based on extrapolation the burning rate goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) does not appear achievshyable even at 400 wt as-received CU-0202 P

(3) A mixed ballistic modifier system of AD and CU-0202 P appears necessary to meet the burning rate goal

The third batch SB-134 (HMX) was made using the mixed ballistic modifier system of 100 wt hammer mill ground (72 m) AD and 200 wt as-received CU-0202 P Brookfield viscosity and strand burning rates were also measured on this batch and results are also shown in Table 3-42 They indicated the following

(1) Strand burning rate of 0879 cms at 690 Ncm2 (0346 ins at 1000 psia) was achieved with Batch SB-134 (HMX) This almost meets the goal of 089 cms (035 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

(2) End-of-mix viscosity of 21 kP at 520C (125 0 F) indicated the propellant had acceptable castability

Limited time and budget did not allow for any additional optimization of the ballistic modifier system Therefore Formulation ANH-33 [Batch SB-134 (HMX)] was selected for evaluation in a scale-up batch and motor tests Results of these additional tests are discussed inthe sections on Scale-Up and Ballistic Evaluation

3-100

---

Table 3-42 Optimization of Ballistic Modifier System for ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant

Batch No

Formulation No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 wt IDP plasticized)

Aluminum MD-105

Copper chromite as received 21 [m

Ammonium dichromate Hamshymer mill ground 72 pm

Ammonium nitrate unground Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground Monsanto

HMX Class E

Ammonium perchlorate FEM ground 63 pm

Brookfield End-of-mix Viscosity kP at 520C (1250F)

Strand burning rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

SB-132

ANH-34

1200

1500

200

2900

1500

1700

1000

10000

33

(500 psia) 0594 (0234)

At 690 Ncm2 0757 (0298) (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia) 035

3-101

SB-138 SB-134

ANH-32 ANH-33

1200 1200

1500 1500

300 200

--- 100

2800 2800

1500 1500

1700 1700

1000 1000

10000 10000

Could not 21 measure

0630 (0248) 0615 (0242)

0810 (0319) 0879 (0346)

036 051

In summary the following approaches were investigated as methods

of achievins faster propellant burning rates and the goal of 089 cms

at 690 Ncmd (035 ins at 1000 psia)

(1) HMX class (particle size)

(2) HMX level

(3) Dimethyl silicone as ballistic modifier

(4) Finer AN particle size

(5) Finer AP particle size

(6) Finer CU-0202 P particle size

(7) Ballistic modifier type and level

Of these only (1) (2) (5) and (7) proved to be effective approaches

to faster burning rates

c Hazards Classification The Naval Ordnance Station (NOS) did some of the initial propellant hazard classification testing to define the maximum level of HMX which could be used and remain a Class 2 propellant The basic ANHMXAPA1HTPB formulation selected for testing was an 88 wt total solids HTPB (R-45) formulation with 150

wt aluminum and 10 wt ammonium perchlorate Tests were planned on formulations with and without the ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P Table 3-43 summarizes results of these hazard tests These results indicated that 20 wt Class E HMX (15 Mm)in non-ballistic modified formulations gave propellants which marginally met card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant (lt70 cards) AP particle size appeared to affect card gap test results No firm conclusions could be made regarding the ballistic modified formulations

This effort to define the maximum HMX level for a Class 2 ballisshytic modified propellant was continued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) with AFRPL support Card gap tests made on the ballistic modified formulations reported in Tables 3-34 and 3-35 are summarized in Table 3-44 for convenience

General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Maximum level of Class A HMX is greater than 1000 wt and less than 1500 wt for a ballistic modified formulation

to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

(2) Maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1500 wt and less than 2000 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt70 cards)

3-102

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Ingredients wt

AN (unground) 430 430 4776 4279 390 3862

AP 45p m 100 - - -

AP 6 [m - - 995 995 - -

AP 4 [m - 100- - - - -

AP 2 4m - - - - 100 99

HMX 15 pm 200 200 1493 1990 200 198

Al H-12 150 150 1493 1493 150 1485

HTPB Binder 120 120 1243 1243 120 1287

AD - - - - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

CU-0202 P - 20 198

(Ballistic Modifier)

Lab Safety Tests

Impact sensitivity mm 375 375 350 275 -

Friction kg (lb) gt444 gt444 gt444 gt444 -

(980) (980) (980) (980)

ESD J gt125 L125 125 gt125

Field Safety Tests

Card gap cards 55 to 65 to 0 60 to 35 to 55 to 60 70 - 65 50 60

Cap neg neg neg neg neg neg

3-103

Table 3-43 NOS Hazard Test Data (Continuation 1)

Propellant Formulations

Batch No 64 66 68 69 73 81

Unconfirmed burning neg neg neg neg neg neg

Critical dia cm (in) gt64 gt64 gt64 gt64 lt89 lt89 (25) (25) (25) (25) (35) (35)

aX-ray of samples showed evidence of voids

Table 3-44 JPL Hazard Test Data (Comparing Class A with Class E)

Batch No HMX Card Gap

Wt Class Positive Negative Cards

SB-88 10 A - 2 0 - 1 -35

SB-83 15 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-84 20 A 1 - 35 2 - 70

SB-87 10 E - 2 0 - 1 35

SB-85A 15 E - 32 - 2 35

SB-86 20 E 1 - 35 1 70

Class E HMX was selected because higher levels could be incorporated and remain a Class 2 propellant and because it gave the best ballistic properties

3-104

Two additional small-scale (1500 g) batches were made to better define the maximum level of Class E HMX The Class E HMX was varied to the 1900 wt and 1700 wt levels for Batches SB-97 (HMX) and SB-98 (HMX) respectively Card gap sensitivity strand burning rates and relative castability were measured in both batches Table 3-45 shows the test results These tests indicated the maximum level of Class E HMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1900 wt for a ballistic modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

The 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches were made varying Class E HIX level to 1500 1700 and 1750 wt Card gap verification tests were made on these batches as shown later in Table 3-49 and test results are summarized in Table 3-46

Results of all the tests indicated the maximum level of Class E IHMX is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt for a ballistic

) modified formulation to meet Class 2 card gap requirements (lt 70 cards)

d Processing Studies The relative castability of propellant was observed on the small-scale (1000 to 1500 g) development batches and used in the selection of formulations for evaluation in the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches Brookfield end-of-mix and pot life tests were measured on all of the 946-liter (25-gal) scale-up batches

The coarse Class A HMX (W149 gim) has a better particle size than the fine Class E HMX (15 - 20 pm) for solids packing Consequently the Class A HMX yielded propellants with better castability than the Class E HMX (Table 3-35) However Class E HMX was selected for all the scale-up batches because higher HMX levels could be used and ballistic properties were better (faster burn rates and lower pressure exponents) The level of MX was generally limited by Class 2 card gap constraints before castability became unacceptable

The lower viscosity plasticizer IDP yielded propellants with significantly better castability than the plasticizer DOA with only a slight loss in propellant burning rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) (Tables 3-38 and 3-39) Therefore IDP was the selected plasticizer

Replacement of the very coarse unground AN prills by coarselyground AN improved castability but reduced propellant burning rate Consequently the fraction of AN coarse ground was limited to 34 to maximize burn rate consistent with good castability (Tables 3-38 and 3-39

Replacement of the hammer mill ground (90 14m) AP by the fluid energy mill ground (63 jim) AP made the propellant more viscous but castability remained good (Table 3-40) This change significantly increased propellant burning rate and made the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) achievable (Fig 3-16) Therefore the fluid energy mill ground AP (63 pm) was selected for use when it became available

3-105

Table 3-45 ANHMXAPAHTPB-Formulation-z HMX Level (Class E HMX)

Batch No

Ingredients wt

HTPB binder (40 plasticizer)

Aluminum

Ammonium dichromate ground

Copper chromite

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground (US Steel with anticaking coating)

Ammonium nitratecoatse -ground (US Steel with anticaking c6ating)

Ammonium perchlorate ground

Relative Castability shy

-

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 345 Ncm2

(500 psia)

At 690 Ncm2

(1000 psia)

Pressure Exponent at 345 to 690 Ncm2 (500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

35 Cards

55 Cards

69 Cards

3-166

SB-97 SB98 ANH-15 ANH-16

1200 1200

1500 1500

200 200

200 200

1900 1700

-2500 2700

1500 1500

1000 1000

Good Good

castability castability

0678 (0267) 0653 (0257)

0826 (0325) 0810 (0319)

028 030

1---positive

--- 1 positive

4 positive 2 negative

---

---

---

---

---

Table 3-46 JPL Hazard Test Data (Class E)

HMX Batch No

Wt Class

SB-89 (HMX) 15 E

SB-92 (HMX) 15 E

SB-106 (HMX) 175 E

SB-141 (H4X) 17 E

Positive

4

3

I

I

I

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

2

1

Card Gap

Negative Cards

6 0

10 35

2 0

5

--- 10

--- 15

--- 20

--- 27

3 30

5 35

--- 69

2 70

--- 35

--- 60

--- 61

--- 62

3 63

1 65

10 69

3-107

Replacement of the as-received CU-0202 P (21 pm) by attritor ground CU-0202 P (17 pm) did not significantly affect propellant castashybility Since this change increased burning rate by only 2 the asshyreceived (21 pm) CU-0202 P was selected Increasing the Cu-0202 P level from 200 to 300 wt significantly increased propellant viscosity making it less castable (Table 3-42)

Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH were shown to signifishycantly improve castability and pot life with the ANAPAlHTPB propellant After checking to determine these materials were compatible and safety properties were adequate these pot-life extenders were incorporated into the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant

e Combustion Problems The problem of incomplete combustion of aluminum within the motor with subsequent loss of delivered speciflc impulse was addressed for the basic ANHMXAPAlHTBP propellant early in the program Two approaches evaluated to improve metal combustion I Land delivered specific impulse were

(1) Use of aluminummagnesium (AlMg) alloys

(2) Replacement of aluminum by magnesium

This work (by NOS) was done concurrently Mith the development -CV of the basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant using conventional aluminum For convenience and clarity all of the NOS propellant development work done with the R-45 HTPB binder is reported and discussed in this section

Table 4-47 summarizes results of motor tests on ANHMXAPA1HTPB propellants with no ballistic modifiers Propellant formulation variations made were

(1) Total solids loading (87 to 88 wt )

(2) AP particle size (20 and 200 [m)

(3) HMX (Class E) level (20 and 30 wt )

(4) Metal level (15 to 20 wt ) shy

(5) Metal type (Al -and AlMg alloy)

The motors tested were either 4536-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors or 1814-kg (40-1b) charge (FPC) motors at sea level conditions Corrections to vacuum conditions with E = 685 were made as shown in Table 4-47 General conclusions from this work were as follows

(1) Motor burning rates at 483 Ncm2 (700 psia) were all in the range of 0356 to 0457 cms (014 to 018 ins) Ballistic modifiers are required to meet burning rate goal of 089 Ncm2 (035 ins) with a pressure exponent of

042

3-108

Table 3-47 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development Measured Ballistic Evaluation

Specific Impulse

Propellant Data N-skg (s)

Burning rate at 483 Ncm

2

AP Vacuumd (700 psi)Motor Percent Particle Percent Percent

Typeb of AP Size m of HMX of Metal Type of Metal Delivered c = 685 cms (ins)

TPC 10 200 20 20 Aluminum 19476 (1986) 0356 (014)

20 19 AlMg (9010) 19760 (2015) 21633 (2206) 0381 (015)TPCa 200

TPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 21114 (2153) 22271 (2271) 0381 (015)

TPC 200 20 15 AlMg (9010) 20359 (2076) 20908 (2312) 0356 (014)

0 TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20398 (2080) 22467 (2291) 0356 (014)

TPC 200 30 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23134 (2358) 0356 (014)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 21045 (2146) 23222 (2368) 0457 (018)

TPC 20 20 15 Aluminum 20908 (2132) 23242 (2370) 0457 (018)

FPC 200 20 15 Aluminum 19192 (1957) 21898 (2233) 0445 (0175)

00 wt total solids loaded propellant the remainder are 88 wt a87 bTPC are 4536-kg (10-1b) charge motor grains

CFPC are 1814-kg (40-1b) charge motor grains dAll motor tests were made at sea level Correction to vacuum conditi6ns was made as follows

fFdt me + Pa Aeta Vac Isp ms =

CF Creq

Correction to desired expansion ratio (c req) was done by multiplying vac Isp ms by C

CF C act

(2) The maximum vac Isp ms e = 685 obtained for this series of tests were 23242 N-skg (2370 s) This was obtained using 15 wt conventional Al 20 wt Class E HMX and 10 wt 20 jim AP The performance goal was vac Isp ms

E = 71 gt 2403 N-skg (245 s)

(3) Reducing the AP particle size from 200 to 20 gm significantly improved vac Isp ms pound1177 N-skg (C12s)] and increased

burning rate

(4) Increasing the Class E HMX level from 20 to 30 wt signishyficantly increased vac Is ms 686 N-skg (-7 s) However propellant with 30 wt C ass E HMX did not meet the card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(5) Increasing the metal level from 15 wt to 19 or 20 wt significantly reduced vac inpMs

(6) Replacement of the conventional aluminum by the AlMg alloy

(9010) appeared to give a small performance gain 392 N-skg (14 s) However the data was too limited to draw

firm conclusions

Propellant development effort was continued in an effort to achieve the performance goals The ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P were selected based on work done by JPL In addition finer AP particle sizes were selected based on the ability of this approach to achieve both improved performance and faster burning rates A Class E HMX level of 20 wt O was selected as the maximum to meet card gap requirements for Class 2 propellants based on card gap tests available at that time Table 3-48 summarizes motor test and theoretical performance results on the three ballisttc modified propellant formulations evaluated Formushylation 2A used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system 10 wt 55 Jim AP and 15 wt conventional aluminum Formulation 2Bused 1 wt AD as ballistic modifier 10 wt 10 gm AP and 15 wt AlMg alloy (9010) Formulation 2C used 2 wt mixed ballistic modifier system no AP and 15 wt magnesium The motor test results shown are all from 45-kg (10-1b) charge (TPC) motors Since several formulation variables were varied between the three formulations it is not possible to isolate just the effect of metal type on propellant performance However the following general conclusions can be made from this work

(1) Formulation 2A which used conventional aluminum was the most promising candidate The vac Isp ms E = 684of 24144 N-skg (2462 s) met the goal of vac Isp Ms E = 71 -2403 N-sks (245 s) Burning rate achieved was 076 cms at 483 Ncm (030 ins at 700 psia) compared to the goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) with a pressure exponent _04

(2) Formulation 2B which used the AlMg alloy (9010) had a theiretical Isp (1000147) nearly the same as formulashy

tion 2A but Vac Isp msC = 684 was only 23252 N-skg(2371 s) In addition the burning rate was only 053

3-10

---

---

Table 3-48 NOS Space Shuttle Alternate Propellant Development -Ballistic Evaluation Theoretical vs Measured

Propellant No

Ingredients wt

AN

AP

HMX (15 pm)

Al

AlMg alloy (9010)

Mg

AD

CU-0202 P

R-45M

DOA

Theoretical Density gcm 3

(lbin3 )

Theoretical I

(Iooo147 )a Lcm 2 (s)

Measured Isp N-skg (s) at e = 55

2A

410

100 (55 fim)

200

150

10

10

80

40

17051

(00616)

24978

(2547)

22810 (2326)

Measured Vac Is N-skg (s) 24144 corr to E = 68 (2462)

Burn rate at 483 Ncm3

(700 psia) cms 076 (ins) (030)

2B 2C

420 510

100 (10 pm) --shy

200 200

150 --shy

--- 150

10 10

--- 10

100 80

20 40

16829 16027

(00608) (00579)

24958 23997 (2545) (2447)

21310 20113 (2173) (2051)

23252 22673 (2371) (2312)

053 041 (021) (016)

aStandard Conditions Chamber pressure of 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) and expanded to 1 atm (147 psia)

3-111

cms at 483 Ncm2 (021 ins at 700 psia) for this formulation This data suggests that there was no performance advantage in using the AlMg alloy compared to conventional aluminum

(3) Formulation 2C which used magnesium as the metal had theoshyretical density and theoretical Isp (1000147) values significantly lower than formulation 2A The measured Isp and burning rates confirmed that this was-the least attractive of the three formulations

This work was ended at this stage of the program Good Isp efficiencies were being achieved with conventional aluminum using 10 wt fine particlesize AP and the selected ballistic modifiers AD and CU-0202 P

f Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations Four formulashytions were selected for scale-up evaluation and motor tests throughout the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant development effort Table 3-49 shows these four formulations Major changes in the formulations which were made as a result of the development effort on the small scale were

(1) dhange from DOAt lower viscbsity lasti6izdr IDP to improveshycastability

(2) Use of the pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH to improve castability and pot life

(3) Reductions of the total ballistic modifier level from 400 wt to 300 wt to improve performance

(4) Selection of 17 wt ClassE HMX to achieve maximum performance and burning rate within the constraint of a Class 2 propellant

(5) Changes in the AN type to the higher density harder prill Monsanto AN to improve castability and burn rate control

(6) Change from hammer mill ground 8-9 gm AP to the finer fluid energy mill ground 63 Itm AP to achieve faster burning rates

All four formulations were successfully mixed and loaded into 5 x 10 motors BATES motors and small-scale samples The motors were successfully tested and results are summarized and discussed in Subsection g Ballistic Evaluation The following additional tests were made on the small-scale samples

(1) Brookfield end-of-mix viscosities and pot life

(2) Strand burning rates

(3) Card gap

(4) Density

(5) JANNAF uniaxial physical properties

3-112

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No SB-89 SB-92 SB-106 SB-141

Formulation No ANH-9 ANH-12 ANH-18 ANH-33

Batch size kg (ib) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Ingredients wt

R-45 polymer 6470 6582 6528 6397

DOA plasticizer 4613

IDP plasticizer --- 4647 4609 4615

)OA plasticizer (HMX coating) 0187 0153 0191 0185

Lirosperse 11 P 0113 0113 0113 0113

UOP-36 0040

DTBH --- --- --- 0040

IPDI 0617 0559 0559 0610

Ammonium dichromate (ground 7 Mm) 200 200 200 100

Copper chromite (as received 21 pm) 200 200 200 200

Aluminum powder MD-105 1500 1500 1500 1500

--- --- ---

---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

HMX Class E

Ammonium nitrate unground Gulf Oil U S Steel Monsanto

Ammonium nitrate coarse ground

U S Steel Monsanto ---

Ammonium perchlorate hammer mill ground 8-9 Am fluid energy mill ground 63 Am

Totals

Brookfield apparent viscosities at 520C (125 0 F) (Viscosity kPtime after curative addition)

End-of-mix

(Continuation 1)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

1500

4400

1000

10000

2208 2018 2128

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

1500

2900

1500

1000

10000

1609 2819 2929 4139 4149

SB-106 SB-141

ANH-18 ANH-33

104 (230) 113 (250)

1750 1700

2900 2800

1250 1500

1000 --shy1000

10000 10000

1008 708 1418 1318 2228 1527 2438 2137

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

--- ---

--- ---

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type

Batch No

Formulation No

Batch size kg (lb)

Strand Burning Rates at 250C (770F) cms (ins)

At 172 Ncm2 (250 psia) At 345 Nam 2 (500 psia) At 517 Ncm (750 psia) At 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

Strand Pressure Exponent 345 to 690 Ncm

2

(500 to 1000 psia)

Card Gap Tests

0 cards

20 cards 27 cards 30 cards 35 cards 60 cards 61 cards 62 cards 63 cards

65 cards

(Continuation 2)

SB-89

ANH-9

61 (135)

0599 (0236)

0721 (0284)

027

6 negative 4 positive

10 negative

---

---

SB-92

ANH-12

104 (230)

0503 (0198) 0617 (0243) 0691 (0272) 0775 (0305)

031

2 negative 3 positive 1 positive 1 positive 3 negative 5 negative

SB-106

ANH-18

104 (230)

0566 (0223) 0683 (0269) 0767 Co302) 0818 (0322)

027

SB-141

AHN-33

113 (250)

0544 (0214) 0622 (0245) 0719 (0283) 0805 (0317)

037

1 positive 1 positive 2 positive 3 negative

1 positive 1 negative

Table 3-49 Scale-Up Evaluation of Selected Formulations ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Type (Continuation 3)

SB-89 SB-92 SB-I06 SB-141Batch No

Formulation No ANH9 ANH-12 ANH-18 AHN-33

Batch size kg (lb) 61 (135) 104 (230) 104 (230) 113 (250)

Card Gap Tests (Contd)

69 cards --- --- --- 10 negative

70cards --- --- 2 negative 6 positive

Physical Properties

Density at 250C (770 F) gcm3 (lbin3 ) 16746 (00605) 16359 (00591) 16691 (00603) 16663 (00602)

JANNAF Uniaxial Properties

Sm 1cm 2 (psi) --- 49 (71) --- 64

em --- 19 --- 68

44 (64)--- 49 (71) ---Sb Ncm 2 (psi)

68eb --- 19 ---

Results of these tests are shown in Table 3-49 General conclusions from these tests were

(1) End-of-mix viscosities and pot life improved as changes were made to IDP plasticizer use of pot-life extenders UOP-36 and DTBH and Monsanto AN End-of-mix viscosity for batch SB-141 (HMX) was 7 kP at 520C (125 0 F) and pot life was greater than 37 h

(2) Faster burning rates were achieved as the HNX level was increased as the Gulf Oil AN was replaced by US Steel AN and then by Monsanto AN and as the hammer mill ground AP was replaced by the finer fluid energy mill ground AP

(3) Maximum strand burning rate achieved at 690 Ncm 2 (1000 psia) was 081 cms (032 ins) with batch SB-106 (HMX)

(4) Strand pressure exponents on all four formulations were in the range of 027 to 037 Motor pressure exponents were lower than strand pressure exponents These low-pressure exponents are advantageous and meet the goal of lt042

(5) Card gap tests verified that the maximum level-of Class E HMX which meets the card gap requirements for a Class 2 propellant is greater than 1700 wt and less than 1750 wt

(6) Measured densities were in the range of 16359 to 16746 gcm3 (00591 to 00605 lbin3) for the four formulations

(7) The JANNAF uniaxial properties were oor with maximum stress values in the range of 44 to 49 Ncm (64 to 71 psi) and strain at maximum stress values in the range of 19 to 68

g Ballistic Evaluation ANHMXAPAIHTPB Systems The candidate alternate propellant containing HMX was evaluated in BATES motor firings at three levels of HMX 150 170 and 175 The 150 HMX formulation yielded the highest measured Isp Theoretical calculations had shown 170 to 175 to be optimum for maximum Isp Data from the BATES motor tests suggests that the actual optimum HMX level is somewhere between 15 and 16 This level of HMX in the propellant has been demonstrated to be within the Class 2 requirement The ballistic test data for the three HMX systems follows

(1) Formulation ANH-12 (150 HMX) Figure 3-17 shows the burning rate KN and pressure exponent for this propellant The BATES motor test data is summarized in Table 3-50

(2) Formulation ANH-39 (170 HMX) The ballistic evaluation test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-18 and Table 3-51

3-117

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 104 61524 1 1 1

41016-

-2 2lt E0508-

0 KN -IA BATES MOTOR DATA KN

100 1 -1 0264 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 1000 10

0 0203_ 800 -8 0152 n 0310152 600 6

D 0102 - 400 -4

0051 - 200 - 2

I I I I 100025 1 -2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895 2

PRESSURE Ncm

Figure 3-17 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-12 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (15 HMX) Batch No SB-92

3-n18

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No E-1466 E-1467

Test Date Nov 14 1975 Nov 26 1975

BatchChange No SB-921 SB-922

Nozzle Bt initial 4699 3764 cm (in) (1850) (1482)

Nozzle Dt final 4374 3571 cm (in) (1722) (1406)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 2981 2979 (6572) (6567)

Wp expended kg (ib) 29395 2940

(64806) (6482)

wt expended 986 987

Web thickness cm (in) 45789 4610 (18207) (1815)

tb (burn time) s 735 586

ta (action time) s 764 624

Pc initial Ncm2 (psia) 310 531 (450) (770)

PC max Ncm2 (psia) 386 731 (560) (1060)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 376 702 (545) (1018)

AP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26245 41056 (38066) (59547)

fP dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26779 42285 (38840) (61329)

3-119

Table 3-50 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH-12 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 44 HMX 15 (Class E)

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

Pa (3P dttb) Ncm2

(psia)

r at P cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

It (1F dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion Ratio

E-1466

Nov 14 1975

SB-921

3511 (5179)

0630 (0248)

2253

2411

14507 (47594)

962

6193679 (1392395)

842675 (189441)

6198003 (1393367)

207921 (21202)

9249

237546 (24223)

70

E-1467

Nov 26 1975

SB-922

7006 (10162)

0787 (0310)

3511

3689

14983 k49156)

1006

6349309 (1427382)

1083497 (24358)

6559790 (147470)

220218 (22456)

916

235526 (24017)

70

3-120

PRESSURE psia

10 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 104 1524 I 6

1016 4

0508 0- 2

u KN A BATES MOTOR TESTS N

0254 - 1000 10lt 2 0 5x 10 MOTOR TESTS 8 - 1

0203800g- 8

Z 0152 n 037 600 6 z z

0102 400 4

0051 -- 200 2

I I1 -2

0025 69 138 345 690 1379 t 3447 6895

-PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-18 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-33 AHHMXAPAlHTPB (17 HMX) Batch No SB-141

3-121

BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 PropellantTable 3-51

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

E-1490E-1489Run No

62376 62476Test Date

SB-1412 SB-1411BatchChange No

352684572Nozzle Dt initial cm (in) (1800) (13885)

3444Nozzle Dt final cm (in) 4531

(1784) (1356)

30133017W loaded kg (ib) (6651) (6643)

29332938Wp expended kg (lb) (6477) (6466)

97339738 wt expended

Web thickness cm (in) 4633 4643 (1824) (1828)

570747tb (burn time) s

638 ta (action time) S

794

Pc initialNem2 (psia) 345 683 (500) (990)

362 Pc maximum Ncm2 (psia) 752 (525) (1090)

Pc final Ncm2 N(psia) 324 649 (470) (942)

41665fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 25961 (37654) (6043)

ft dt (ta) N-scm2 (lb-s) 26554 42802 (6208)(38514)

Pc ( P dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 347 731 (524) (1060)

3-122

Table 3-51 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 33 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 43 HMX 170

Run No

Test Date

BatchChange No

r at P0 cms (ins)

KN initial

KN average

C ms (fts)

C efficiency

F dt (tb) Ns (lb-s)

F (fF dttb) N (lb)

it cfF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s)

Isp ms (ItWp)

N-skg (s)

Isp efficiency

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s)

Expansion ratio (E)

De cm (in)

2Ae cm (in2 )

3-123

E-1489 E-1490

62376 62476

SB-1412 SB-1411

0620 0815 (0244) (0321)

2330 3989

2395 4077

143Q7 13540 (46940) (44421)

945 895

5979680 6258348 (1344286) (1406933)

8007 10978 (1800) (2468)

60958 64441 (13704) (14487) 202056 21388

(20604) (2181)

887 872

23183 22810 (2364) (2326)

716 716

12233 9426 (4816) (3711)

117522 69781 (18216) (10816)

(3) Formulation ANH-18 (175 HMX) The ballistic evaluation

test results from this formulation are shown in Fig 3-19 and Table 3-52

h Summary Two ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant formulations were developed that conformed to the program constraints for 3 wt HCl in the exhaust products and for a Class 2 propellant hazards classification These two formulations are ANH-12 (15 wt Class E HMX) and ANH-33 (17 wt Class E HMX) Table 3-53 summarizes and compares the properties of these two formulations versus the program goals Both formulations met the goals for pressure exponent and hazard classification but not the goal for burning rateor delivered vacuum I

The following summarizes the status of the ANH4XAPAlHTPB propellant development

(1) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic propellants

(2) Demonstrated the propellant is Class 2 with levels of Class E HMX up to 17 wt

(3) Demonstrated good castability and pot life greater than 37 h for formulations with 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(4) Successfully loaded and test fired 45-kg (10-1b) motors and 32-kg (70-1b) BATES motors with formulations containing 1500 to 1750 wt Class E HMX

(5) Demonstrated a delivered vacuum Isp (E = 716) of 23752 N-skg (2422 s) with formulation ANH-12

(6) Demonstrated a BATES motor burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) and a pressure exponent of 037 with formulation ANH-33

(7) Measured physical properties and determined a need for additional development effort in this area

(8) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 150 and 170

11 Baseline PBAN Propellant Modification

The current baseline propellant system in the Shuttle SRM is

an 86 solids 16 aluminum PBAN propellant developed by the Thiokol Corporation This baseline propellant has a burning rate of approximately 107 cms (042 ins) at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) pressure In order to simplify the task of matching the burning rates of the alternate propellant and the PBAN baseline-propellant at 400Ncm2 (580 psia)

-3-124

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 103 2 4 6 103

1524 I 6

1016 - 4

A BATES MOTOR DATA 0508 - 0 5 x 10 MOTOR DATA 20508 n =031

E -_ Ko

U IN

u- 0254 - -1000 10shy0203 -800 8

oD 0 z 0152 - 600 6 z z 2

0102 - 400 4

0051 200 2

0025 I I I0 - 2

69 138 345 690 1379 2068 3447 6895

Ncm2 PRESSURE

Figure 3-19 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for ANH-18 ANHMXAPA1HTPB (175 HMX) Batch No SB-106

3-125

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HNX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

Nozzle Dt initial 4592 3543 cm (in) (1808) (1395)

Nozzle Dt final 4463 3388 cm (in) (1757) (1334)

Wp loaded kg (ib) 3022 3023 (6662) (6664)

Wp expended kg (ib) 2956 2957

(6516) (6519)

Wt expended 9781 9782

Web thickness cm (in) 4615 4615 (1817) (1817)

tb (burn time) s 788 - 628

ta (action time) s 818 665

PC initial Ncm2 (psia) 248 483 (360) (700)

PC maximum Ncm2 (psia) 352 717 (510) (1040)

PC final Ncm2 (psia) 296 622 (430) (902)

fP dt (tb) N-scm2 (lb-s) 262146 42991 (380212) (62353)

fp dt (ta) N-scm 2 (lb-s) 265874 44074 (385619) (63924)

3-126

Table 3-52 BATES Motor Tests Data Summary ANH 18 Propellant (Continuation 1)

Solids 88

Aluminum 15

Oxidizer AP 10 AN 415 HMX 175 Class E

Run No E-1472 E-1473

Test Data 12-11-75 12-12-75

BatchChange No SB-1061 SB-1062

PC (fP dttb) Ncm2 (psia) 1471 3026 (4825) (9929)

r at Pc cms (ins) 0587 0734 (0231) (0289)

KN initial 2353 3953

KN average 2421 4131

C ms (fts) 14159 13741 (46425) (45083)

C efficiency 945 916

fF dt (tb) N-s (lb-s) 599055 6320560 (134673) (1420919)

F (fF dttb) N (ib) 7602 100645 (1709) (22626)

it (fF dt for ta) N-s (lb-s) 608823 6498885 (136869) (1461008)

Isp ms (ItWp) N-skg (s) 201478 215001 (20545) (21924)

Isp efficiency 8901 8868

Isp vac ms (corr) N-skg (s) 231761 229240 (23633) (23376)

Expansion ratio 71 72

3-127

Table 3-53 ANHMXAPAlHTPB Propellant Achieved Properties vs Goal

Achieved Value

Alternate Propellant SB-92 (HMX) SB-141 (HMX)

Property Goal ANH-12 ANH-33 (15 HMX) (17 HMX)

Burning Rate at 089 0785 0813 690 Ncm 2 (035) (0309) (032) (1000 psia) BATES Motor cms (ins)

Pressure Exponent lt042 032 037 BATES motor

Delivered Vacuum 2403 23732 23183 Isp N-skg (s) (gt245) (2422) (2364)

71)

HCl in Exhaust 3

Meets Card Gap Requirement for Class 2 yes yes Class 2 required (negative (negative

at 30 cards) at 30 cards)

pressure it was decided to miodify the baseline propellant system to

meet a burning rate of 081 cms at 690 Ncm2 (032 ins at 1000 psia) This modified baseline applies to the dual propellant concept with the alternate propellant only It does not apply to the current Shuttle design requirements The 081 cms (03 ins) burning rate has been achieved and demonstrated in 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings The modified PBAN formulation is referred to in this report as the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

In modifying the basic PBAN formulation to meet the new burning

rate requirement a study was made of the effect on the burning rate of adjusting the Fe203 burning rate catalyst concentration and the

particle size blend of the AP oxidizer The desired burning rate was achieved with a formulation containing a biomodal blend of

Table 3-54 gives the final formulationoxidizer and 0 Fe203 the density and some burning characteristics of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant

3-128

Table 3-54 PBAN Mod-1 Formulation Bimodal 7030 Oxidizer Blend

Ingredients Wt

Ammonium perchlorate

200 pm 4900 10 pm 2100

Aluminum (Alcoa 1230) 1600

PBAN polymer 1204

DER-331 196

10000

Density 2500 (770F) = 17743 gcm3 (00641 lbin3 ) Burn Rate at 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia) 081 cms (032 ins) Pressure exponent n = 0228 at I

345 Ncm 2 (00 psia) lt Pc lt 690 Ncm2 (1000 psia)

The burning rate of the PBAN Mod-1 propellant was verified by test firing several 5 x 10 motors using 45 kg (-10 lb) of propellant over a range of pressures Figure 3-20 shows the burning rates and corresponding Kn values The burning rate equation for this modified PBAN propellant based on the 45-kg (10-1b) motor firings is

r = 00668 PC0228

3-129

PRESSURE psia

102 2 4 6 8 103 2 4 6 8104

1524 6

1016- 4

0508 - 2

E K - 0 5x 10 MOTOR DATAshy

0254 - 1000 10 - 1

0203 n = 0228 800 8 z 0152- a = 00668 600 6

z z 0102 -400 4

200 20051

0025 _I _I I I 10-2

69 138 345 690 1379 3447 6895

PRESSURE Ncm2

Figure 3-20 Shuttle Alternate Propellant Burning Rates and KN for PBAN Mod 1 (Modified Baseline Propellant)

Batch No SB-78

3-130

SECTION IV

UNWORKED AREAS

The program as originally planned included a significant effort in the development of the candidate alternate propellant physical propshyerties and checks to verify adequacy of candidate alternate propellant in the bipropellant grain The reduction of funds and scopeof the program left many of these tasks unworked If the alternate propelshylant concept for Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Motor is pursued on another program then the following unworked areas should be worked

(1) Candidate alternate propellant physical property improvement

(2) Physical property characterization of unaged alternate

propellant

(3) Aging of alternate propellant

(4) Bipropellant interface bond unaged and aged

(5) Alternate propellant insulation interface bond unaged and aged

(6) Performance tests at altitude on candidate alternate propellant

(7) Motor tests with bipropellant grain

(8) Characterization of alternate propellant safety properties

The generally poor physical properties (primarily low strain) measured with both the ANAPAlHTPB and the ANHMXAPAlHTPB propelshylants are believed due primarily to the following causes

(1) Poor bond of the HTPB binder to the oxidizer particles

AN and HMX

(2) Crosslinking of the R-45 HTPB polymer through the double bonds caused by the acidity of AN

The approach planned to solve the poor bonding properties to the oxidizer particles was development of bonding agents for both the AN and the HMX Aerojet Solid Propulsion Company has demonstrated significantly improved physical properties in HMXAPAlHTPB propellants using polyureas as bonding agents Epoxides and polyureas were considered as candidate bonding agents for the AN Development of an acid scavengershywas considered as one of the approaches to the second cause of the poor physicals

4-1

SECTION V

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this alternate propellant development effort led to the following general conclusions

(1) It is technically feasible to minimize (lt_3 wt ) release of HCl above 1981 km (65000 ft)

(2) The basic ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant is the most promising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants Formushylation ANH-12 is the best formulation developed to date

(3) Propellant with 17 wt Class E HMX meets card gap requirements for Class 2 propellant

(4) The basic ANAPAlHTPB propellant is the second most promshyising candidate of the three basic alternate propellants

(5) More than 1000 wt AP (gt3 HCI in propellant exhaust) is required in the ANAPAlHTPB propellant to meet the burn rate goal of 089 cms at 690 Ncm2 (035 ins at 1000 psia) Formulation AN-71 with 2000 wt AP is the best formulation of this type developed to date

(6) The basic ANHMXAlHTPB propellant (0 HCl) is the least promising candidate and probably not viable for achieving program goals

(7) A few of AP is essential to achieve good aluminum comshybustion

(8) Good castability and acceptable pot life were achieved with all three basic alternate propellants

(9) Additional development effort is needed to improve the physical properties of any of the candidate propellants

(10) The small potential performance gains possible with TMETN did not justify the potential risks of compatibility problems with ballistic modifiers TMETN migration and aging degradashytion

(11) The Monsanto phase stabilized E-2 AN is the preferred AN type because it has the best physical and handling propershyties at comparable cost compared to other AN types

(12) The maximum HMX content for maximum delivered Isp is between 15 and 17

5-I

(13) With additional effort to optimize the formulation with regard to HMX level burning rate modifier level and oxidizer particle size the program goals ban be met with an ANHMXAPAlHTPB propellant system

5-2

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM

SOLUBILITY OF MTN INI HYDROCARBON BINDER

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

MMORANDUM

From 2051BCTo 563 Via 205

Subj Solubility of MTN in hydrocarbon binder

1 A study was conducted to determine if MTN could be used in the R45 binder system for the NASA II propellant Dicetyladipate (DOA) would be used for a co-solvent

2 Figure 1 is a portion of a phase diagram for the MTN-DOA-R45 system Areas to the right of the curve are two phase Areas to the left of the curve are single phase The effect of temperature is also shown

3 For Figure 2 TP90B was used instead of DOA TP90B is not as effective a co-solvent as DOA

4 Beccause PPG-1225 (a polypropylene glycol) is soluble both in R45 afidMTN it also was invesrigated PFG-1225 has an advantage over DOA in that it is a reactive polymer and could contribute to the mechanical strength as well as providingco-solubility In Figure 3 a 5050 mixture of R45 and PGshy1225 was used for the starting material The solubility of MTN was determined Because PPG-1225 was not a very goodco-solvent DOA was added to enhance the solubility Areas to the right of the curve are two phase and areas to the left of the curve are single phase

5 For Figure 4 a starting material of 733 R-45 and 261 PPG-1225 was used DOA was used to enhance the solubility of MTN in the system

6 It was determined that adiponitrile was not solulle in R45 and therefore could not be used to replace DOA

7 It was determined that R-18 (a polyglycol adipate) was not soluble in R45 and therefore could not be used to replacePPG-1225

8 A sample from Figure 1 was cured with IPDI This will be used to evaluate the long term effect of the nitrate ester on the binder system

Enclosure (1)

A-i

OrNA PALi I

1

ROOM--H- 2 - I

____

-OM I H j 1 35 TEMPERATURE i TI I ItI

I I I I

25

I 3 0 Z _--_ _ _

i i ii

5 n

JI t II it

t - -- -

151 1 1H - IL I

i s _ _

I- III I I I

715

MTffN 20 2 P

Figure 1 So bility of DOA and TN plusmnn R-A5

A-2

- -

40

Lj

r -

11- f

- - iutm

30 HH

-4-

__I_ ____

~ I

~vt

_

[ I_ _ iJ

25 _ _ _

1 1kH I __ _ _ _- _ _ __ _ _

-H 71

- r T--- W 4J-W-L -- t ___ __

_ _ _ __ _ _

q----i- -

52

Figure2 Solubility o f P9BadM1 nR4

A-3

iplusmn II1 -shyI~hhiI4plusmnplusmnt~~t~ -

LL J-

rO zt_-il 4 it-T i -- - -- --a -- 4- shy

-- 4 tL ---L-C-- 1 ------ 13-F- --shy

--- 4 i

I _

I I --0F

L II

it I _ _ _- _ I___

I- - -- - - - ---- shy--_ _ __ __-L J _ _

I - i t1 hIIt -____I j I

-+4 4 1 - - - -I 7 _ -J shy______ _ 2---2--I_lc_

L L rI-T- r

4 -I - -t -- u

10 15 20 25 30 N

Figure 3 Solubility of DOA and LMN in 50 R-4550 PG-1225

A-4

1

35 f

it-lt-ir

II I II

303i-- h

4o

z5-11144_FLI Lb deg T - shy i

bull

25

- -

20

I

- i11 fI1I

Ii JIf j -shy

1 iifIF

I I j I

dstkj tji--4

-4--4 1

1

I0tLLIL t

I

1wi

IFI 4 I

r

iiL -shy plusmn4 4 - H _

64211

I

L3

M -44

t

-i-

__

5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 4 ltSolubility of DOA and MTN in 733 R-45267 PPG-1225

A-5

2051BCCEJpbh (4352) 205112075 3900 15 May 1975

9 -Ifan 88 (or 84) solids loaded 6 polymeric binder system will give acceptable physical properties then the

following formulations should be investigated

R-45 PPG1225 DA MT__N Al AP 1HM AN

10 4360 - -40 20 15 20 44 16 36 24 15 10 20 43

5360 - 40 20 15 10 10 44 1-6 36 24 15 10 10 53

15 10 20 3960 - 66 34 44 16 62 38 15 10 20 39

To properly evaluate these they should be compared to

AL AP HMK ANR-45 DOA 5360 60 15 10 20

10 53100 20 15 20

A quick look at some of the theoretical results to date indishycate that these substit-utions of - MTNfor Inert polymer -may result ina gain of about18 pounds seclb in impulse and a gain of 0001 poundscu in in density

C EJOHNSON

Copy to 205 2051BC 2051C1 TDI

A-6

PU BLICATION79-29

Page 11: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 12: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 13: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 14: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 15: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 16: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 17: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 18: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 19: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 20: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 21: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 22: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 23: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 24: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 25: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 26: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 27: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 28: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 29: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 30: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 31: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 32: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 33: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 34: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 35: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 36: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 37: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 38: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 39: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 40: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 41: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 42: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 43: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 44: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 45: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 46: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 47: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 48: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 49: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 50: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 51: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 52: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 53: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 54: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 55: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 56: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 57: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 58: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 59: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 60: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 61: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 62: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 63: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 64: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 65: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 66: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 67: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 68: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 69: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 70: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 71: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 72: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 73: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 74: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 75: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 76: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 77: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 78: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 79: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 80: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 81: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 82: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 83: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 84: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 85: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 86: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 87: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 88: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 89: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 90: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 91: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 92: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 93: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 94: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 95: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 96: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 97: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 98: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 99: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 100: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 101: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 102: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 103: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 104: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 105: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 106: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 107: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 108: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 109: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 110: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 111: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 112: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 113: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 114: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 115: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 116: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 117: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 118: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 119: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 120: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 121: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 122: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 123: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 124: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 125: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 126: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 127: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 128: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 129: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 130: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 131: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 132: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 133: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 134: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 135: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 136: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 137: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 138: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 139: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 140: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 141: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 142: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 143: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 144: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 145: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 146: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 147: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 148: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 149: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 150: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 151: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 152: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 153: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 154: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 155: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 156: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 157: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 158: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 159: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 160: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 161: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 162: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 163: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report
Page 164: Altern-ate Propellant Program Phase Final Report